Price Per Gallon: A Moment Of Liquid Humor

We all need a moment of humor to reflect upon every once in a while. Some of you have already seen this. I myself, just got it today from a co-worker. It's a humorous view of the prices we pay per gallon for various liquids. So the next time your at the fuel pump griping about the cost of gas, think of it this way;

And remember, all these examples do NOT imply that gasoline is cheap; it just illustrates how outrageous some prices are.... when Compared with Gasoline......

Diet Snapple 16 oz $1.29 ... $10.32 per gallon.

Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz $1.19 ... $9.52 per gallon.

Gatorade 20 oz $1.59 ... $10.17 per gallon.

Ocean Spray 16 oz $1.25 ... $10.00 per gallon.

Brake Fluid 12 oz $3.15 ... $33.60 per gallon.

Vick's Nyquil 6 oz $8.35 ... $178.13 per gallon.

Pepto Bismol 4 oz $3.85 ... $123.20 per gallon.

Whiteout 7 oz $1.39 ... $25.42 per gallon.

Scope 1.5 oz $0.99 ... $84.48 per gallon.

And here, this is the REAL KICKER...

Evian water 9 oz $1.49..........$21.19 per gallon! $21.19 for WATER!!!! And the buyers don't even know the source. But then, Evian spelled backwards is NAIVE. Go figure.

And here's one last one to really get your shorts in a bind.

Printer Ink......... $5,200 a gal. (five thousand two hundred dollars). No wonder printers have gotten so cheap. They kill you with the ink costs!

So, the next time you're at the pump, be glad your car doesn't run on water, Scope, Whiteout, Pepto Bismol, Nyquil or, heaven forbid, Printer Ink!!!!!

Have a nice day now. 8^)

Safe Homes Initiative: Give Us Your Guns Or Else

Wow! I mean just WOW! Talk about a step in the wrong direction. When can we expect the duck walking Geshtapo to hit the scene? Fearing that the Supreme Court will actually uphold the 2nd Amendment, D.C. officials are taking the matter into their own hands. And in a big and wrong way.

The Safe Homes Initiative being instituted by Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, are doing a "door-to-door" search for weapons. Essentially, they show up, hand you a slip of paper that you sign agreeing to let them search your house. They will remove any and all firearms and related paraphenalia. Attempt to discern if any of it has been used in a crime. If they have, your fried, if not, they will conveniently destroy the weapon(s) for you. Oh, by the way, they give you the choice out of the officers that show up as to which you would prefer to search your house.

Oh thank you soooo muchies for that gracious option Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier. We can now rest easy knowing you care so much about our emotional needs in this matter.

This is just soooo wrong beyond any standards that it's almost impossible to believe it's happening. It's so wrong that even the ACLU is against it. And if the American Communists and Liberals Union folks are against something like this, then it definetly bears closer examination.

This article originally came to me through getliberty.org in which carried some interesting comments. One was by Criminology Prof. Thomas Nolan in which he stated, "I just have a queasy feeling any time the police try to do an end run around the Constitution. The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don’t have that."

Another reference was made that refers back to a chilling time known as the "Kristallnacht," and how that ended. And the real downside of this, is that the ordinary citizen, as described in the article, may just be naive enough to believe that they don't have the option of saying NO to a search.

A sad point in all of this is, I support much of (if not damn near all of) what the Police do. Anyone willing to put their life on the line, daily, for me and my safety is worth respecting to the "nth" degree. But what the hell is this crappola?

Article info provided by Americans for Limited Government.

The Religion Of Peace: Site Highlight

Thriving off of the current wave of "tolerance& diversity," (not to mention force) one shouldn't be shocked that islam is one of, if not THE most rapidly growing religion today. But most people have no realistic knowledge of islam. Nor the real history behind it. Hence, many myths and false ideals circulate.

It's interesting that I should choose to start (on occasion,) to tap-out an article here and there about other blogs/sites. Blogs/sites that in some ways, perhaps many ways, share the same thoughts I have about the situations in the world today. And the site I chose to bring up in this article is The Religion Of Peace.com.

Why did I pick this particular site? Well, most people (myself included) who have decent knowledge of the history and blood trail islam has left in its wake over its many centuries of existence, simply rant about what we do know. We then leave the remainder to the higher scholars to deal with the rest. And TROP is pretty accurate when checked against other sources.

TROP also has its own little "deadly attacks" counter which updates as new suicide bombings and the like are reported and verified. And they have continued to do so since 9/11. As of this writing, there have been 10,784 terrorist attacks of one form or another that resulted in at least one death.

Islam is not a peaceful religion by any means. But TROP also makes a very clear statement on its ABOUT page that speaks directly to the American acceptance of others; At the same time, we have no patience for name-calling, lies, or acts of violence. No Muslim should be harassed or harmed anywhere in the world because of his or her religion. Islam is a broad faith and every Muslim should be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. It then continues on to speak of some exceptional muslims who's faith has given them good character.

TROP's site is very info filled and is worth at least a skim through to gain some knowledge about what you are, and aren't hearing in the news. There is a section for the Myths about Muhammad. In today's courts he would have been convicted of pedophilia as his youngest (most favored wife) was only six when he married her. And nine when he "consummated" the marriage with her.

There is a section regarding the Myths of Islam itself, such as islam's intolerance of other religions. It delves into the dhimmitude and jizya aspects of third class life for those who did not convert, and how those who could/would not pay the taxes were killed or had their family members forcibly taken away.

As for the debating muslim, there is a section aptly titled, Games Muslims Play. In which, it covers many of the bogus arguments commonly tossed about by groups like CAIR, MSA, OIC and the rest. Such points as the qur'an teaches thou shalt not kill, just like the Bible does. Or the all popular resurrection of the Crusades argument.

Lastly, it brings up the subject of Is the Qur'an Hate Propaganda? Always a touchy subject, but it covers it quite well with appropriate use of qur'an verses which speak directly of the sections topic.

All this is but the tip of the iceberg of information available on this site, which I recommend everyone should visit. Even skeptics should at least peruse the various links there and compare the info with other sources to determine for yourselves its accuracy.

Article info provided by thereligionofpeace.com.

New Gun Laws Or Just Better Ones: Perhaps Both?

Okay, as it stands, I believe in the right to gun ownership. I believe the Second Amendment guarantees it. Anti-gun pundits keep pointing to Virginia Tech and other shootings as reason for MORE laws. I say different, as seen by the Appalachian incident, we could use BETTER laws, NOT more laws.

Perhaps though, there are situations were BOTH can be had together. And some students not happy with waiting for something to be done, are stepping up to the plate to get something done, as can be seen HERE.

But during a "BS" session on my lunch break last night, something interesting was brought up. And that is the factor of varying cultures in America. As we've been seeing lately on news story after news story, we are no longer a "melting pot of cultures." One of my co-workers related a story to me on this topic about his wife, who works for a local school district.

He mentioned that said school contacted a student's parent about her attendance. The school told the parent she needed to be in school. So, the next day the girl showed up, albeit with bruises and the like and was of course, sent to the nurse. As you may expect, everybody and their brother in the administration jumped in. Now the parent is in danger of losing the child. The parent, now understandably upset, contacted the Principal's office demanding to know what he should do now. The school says the daughter needed to be in class, so he makes her go, now they want to take her away.

Nice story John, but what's the point, and what does it have to do with guns?

Here is what I'm getting at. The family in question is Vietnamese. Recently immigrated (legally as far as I know,) to America. My co-worker buddy told me how his wife just prior to this incident, had gone through a seminar being held by a well respected Vietnamese Doctor. That doctor spoke of how dangerous firearms can be in the hands of those of other cultures. In Vietnam from what the doctor said, very very very few people have guns, but they also don't have crap for courts. So neighbors settle disputes by, essentially, beating the heck out of each other. Putting guns in THEIR hands he says, is a recipe for disaster.

So here's my thought about "possibly," both a NEW and BETTER gun law in one shot. [Pardon the pun.] Perhaps as a part of the background check that is conducted when a person attempts to purchase a firearm, is a residency check of some sort. Specifically, more along the lines of legal residency in America. Perhaps a five, maybe seven year BLOCK on recent immigrants to America before they can purchase (legally) a weapon. And that's from the time when they actually swear-in and become Americans. Perhaps this will allow an individual, new to America, time to acclimate to OUR culture.

While not perfect, (especially since in the vast majority of cases legal firearms aren't the problem,) it could help to reduce some unnecessary violence. It would essentially be like the "cool down" period those of us who are born American must endure to buy a weapon. It's just considerably longer for those just becoming Americans.

Your thoughts?

Turmoil Plagues Democrats: Then And Now

Christopher G. Adamo has an interesting article today on the GOPUSA.com website titled, "Democrat Turmoil Reflects Liberal Dysfunction." It's considerably more in depth than my article (Catch-22) from a short while back. But he essentially says the same thing. Democrats are in trouble.

My article basically narrowed down what many people have been noticing happening over the years to the Democratic party. A deep shift in the core values that Democrats once stood for no longer exist, or barely exist. Adamo's article deals more with the current plights facing Democrats. Those being mainly the rifts caused by the dual minority candidates. Both of which have serious problems of their own.

Obama has not only a race issue to deal with, but a wife who's comments are almost as equally un-American as Obama's pastor Rev. Wright. Hillary on the other hand, has the now popular "instant water works" that showed little in the way of strength that may/will be required as a President. And between them, they have developed a feud that provides neither one of them much chance of defeating McCain in a general election.

Not to mention the recent moral failures in New York's upper crust politicians. This may prove to be just as detrimental to the Democratic movement.

As Adamo writes, "In such a tainted atmosphere, it is highly unlikely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) will gain much traction to define the debate during this election cycle with her sanctimonious rants about a Republican culture-of-corruption. And more of the same is likely to come."

But I highly recommend you skip over to GOPUSA.com and read the full article for all the details. I especially recommend Democrat's read it. NOT out of spite, but for its informational value.

Obama's Speech, The Media's Remarks And The Fallout

As you all now know, Obama's pastor apparently has a history of racially charged sermons. Something Obama now has been forced to deal with. So Obama gave a speech recently in Philadelphia about this.

Here is my take on it, what the media is saying, and some of the effects it is having on Obama.

I watched the speech a few times and I must admit, it did sound relatively inspiring. But that's the thing. It sounded too inspiring as I watched it a second and third time. Almost as if it were a "Pre-fabbed, get my butt out of this mess" kinda speech. I suppose what eventually guided me to this was the lack of condemnation of the Rev. Wright, and the kind of double standard Obama's speech was setting.

What I mean by this is, yes, even though he did briefly speak against the Rev. Wrights racial bigotry, it was a minimal portion of the speech, and he didn't renounce him for it. Then adding in that he essentially sympathized with him (Rev. Wright) and immediately jumped into the "heal the nations racial tensions" portion of his speech. "Racial Healing" works BOTH ways. We see Al Sharpton castigating the Duke Lacrosse team calling them racists, rapists and other derogatory terms before they even went to trial, and that's Okay. Don Imus makes one remark and is skinned alive? Go figure.

If you want "healing" Obama, you have got to work on your fellow man. Or what is already obvious now, will be a bigger problem later.

Ever since Obama gave his speech, the media has been swooning over him to no end. Comments such as it being a "Gift" the Senator has given to the country, an "extraordinary speech" and "brilliant" were often used. Comparisons to Abe Lincoln and exceeding Martin Luther King's "I have a dream," speech were also mentioned. Like I said, it was inspirational, but to me overall, it fell short. It's also been described as the media treated it more like a friend in trouble and wanted to help put the unpleasantness behind him.

But, as I wrote earlier, it's possible that this may be the "swiftboat," and perhaps not the only one Obama faces, as the effects are already showing. Reuters is already showing in Zogby polls and the like, that Obama's sizable lead over Hillary has all but dissipated. I'll leave you to scan the Reuters article yourselves.

Article info provided by Reuters and MRC.

More Good News Out Of Iraq? ABC Only Network Finding It

You know, I really have to hand it to ABC as of late. I mean it really must be hard on the media lately with a serious lack of bad news emanating from Iraq. I wrote about this once a few weeks back. And now, it looks like I must give ABC Kudo's again.

"Fair and balanced," seem to actually be resonating through the halls of ABC's headquarters as the media's overall rating's have plummeted to all time historical lows. The bias runs so thick that you couldn't cut through it with a 40 megaton explosive device. ABC seems to want to change that.

When I wrote my last article regarding this subject a few weeks ago, I mentioned how ABC was the only network reporting on the progress and advancements being made in Iraq. Not only at that time had the Iraqi Parliament managed to come to enough agreement to get crucial laws passed, including issues regarding detainee amnesties, but they also managed to get a budget completed and passed. Something our own government seems incapable of doing.

Now we have more POSITIVE word penetrating the liberal filters and reaching the masses coming from ABC. ABC did some nation-wide polling in Iraq to get a feel of how things are really going there. Perhaps they were looking for bad. Who knows. But what they found was GOOD NEWS amongst the Iraqi's themselves.

Some of the results ABC found were that last summer, only 39% or Iraqi's saw life as being better. Now? That number has climbed to 55%. More than half of all Iraqi's... I guess that's not a bad statistic. Also discovered, 73% of Iraqi's wanted the U.S. out of Iraq last year. That number has nose dived to 38%.

There's more info available at the MRC article regarding these reports.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Obama's Swift Boat?

So, the weekend has come and gone. We've all seen the edited/bleeped clips on the news. We've all made the trip to YouTube to see the UN-edited clips. And what do we make of it? Can this Rev. Wright be the swift boat-like torpedo that sinks the "Hope & Change" Obama Love Boat?

[First off, let me make this clear for the flamers; I'M NOT PICKING SIDES FOR OR AGAINST OBAMA. This is just informational in regards to the situation.]

It quite possibly could be, when a couple factors are taken into account. One item of contention is that until now, Obama's minister and church have almost no mention in regards to Obama's campaign. Save the occasional mention to deflect the "He's a muslim," factor. There's more info about this HERE, and HERE.

As mentioned in the MRC articles, a search of network transcripts shows both Wright and his church are rarely ever mentioned, with exception to defense mechanisms.

Another issue is the possibility of Florida and Michigan's delegates now being counted, if they can get their heads on straight. This comes at a bad time for Obama. Even though Florida tends to tilt more to the left, and probably would have embraced Obama wholeheartedly, there's still a few old codgers left living there. Many of which, may have served in say Korea, Vietnam, perhaps a handful from the WWII era, whole still love this country.

Anti-American rhetoric (not to mention the extreme racial slander) coming from a Reverend, especially one who is described as being a lifelong confidant of a potential Presidential Candidate, could damage his outcome.

Obama has attempted a bit of damage control, by stating that he, "Doesn't always agree with what the Reverend says." But is it too little, too late? Possibly....

Article info provided by the MediaResearchCenter.

The Nanny State: An Authors Notes

Townhall.com had an interesting article yesterday by David Strom titled, "None of Your Business!" in respect to the Nanny State effects we all are beginning to feel, and see.

Strom's article covered the various aspects of how social engineers have swayed the thinking that essentially, stuff that's bad for you shouldn't be allowed. Such as smoking, or unhealthy eating that leads to obesity. The reasoning? Expense. How unhealthy people cost overall, more to care for in the long run.

Apparently, this is not the case. Strom's article takes note of a study which says this; "Well, according to a study performed by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, those unhealthy fat people and smokers turn out to be just that: actually cheaper to care for. Healthy people, you see, live longer and cost more. And, just like their less healthy counterparts, they still get sick and die eventually. According to this study thin and healthy people have lifetime health care costs that are nearly 30% higher than smokers, and about 12% higher than fat people. All those costs associated with being unhealthy are outweighed by the fact that people who die younger are cheaper to care for. And that doesn’t include pension costs."

Strom even joked about should we then impose a tax on juice bars and running shoes? Something I have even poked fun at. But no, that's not likely to happen or even be taken seriously. More importantly, is the "We know what's best for you," aspect as more of our choices are removed from the menu of our daily lives.

Do I advocate going out and start smoking three packs of non-filtered cigarettes a day and eating chili dogs for every meal for the rest of your life? Of course not. But the option to smoke or not, and to eat this or that should NOT be decided by someone else. If so, where does it end?

Check out Strom's article HERE;
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidStrom/2008/03/13/none_of_your_business!?page=2

Article info provided by Townhall.com.

Expiring Tax Cuts And More Pork: Wait, That's Not Good

Well, there you have it. The merry go round of voting yesterday pretty much accomplished nothing in the way of restoring the public's faith in government. We're looking at more taxes, and more excessive unnecessary spending.

As expected, the Democratically controlled Senate voted overwhelmingly to continue appropriating mass amounts of funding for their pocket-lining buddies by a 71-29 vote. This last year as it turns out, was to a tune of over $18 billion in pork. Even Hillary and Obama voted to take a one year breather from earmarks, even though Obama already claimed a little over $100 million and Hillary about $385 million.

Democrats aren't the only ones to blame here. Just mostly to blame, as a couple Republicans crossed over to vote down the bill. It seems these folks feel it's some sort of Constitutional guarantee that they be able to dive into the treasury as THEY wish, rather than for what is really necessary.

Also not accomplished was the Bush tax cuts. They will now be expiring in 2011, so expect the already higher prices your paying for stuff now to zip skyward by a considerable amount. Oh, you still get a little break if your married and have kids and are poor, or if your inheriting Bill Gates' empire. Stand by for a lot of wealthy parents to get knocked off.

There's more available on this HERE;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-13-senate-tax_N.htm

The SAVE Act and Pork Spending: A New Bi-partisan Era?

As hard as it is to believe, could we be witnessing the beginning of a new era in BI-Partisan politics? While I hold no overly exuberant hope for that, we may at least be seeing politicians putting aside party lines to start getting the jobs done for which they were elected.

Nah, not likely.

But, we now have TWO, count'em TWO examples of this this week in both the SAVE Act and the Pork Spending.

McCain is only one of six members of the Senate who doesn't go for earmarks. I guess that's one plus I can give him. And he has brought the issue up many times, usually to be defeated not only by Democrats, but recently by some of those in his own party. Obama and Clinton are joining McCain in this call for a one year hiatus in earmarks. Rep.'s and Dem.'s in agreement? Astonishing.

Even Pelosi has jumped on this bandwagon, but with a considerable number of aides seeing this bill failing, it's really not much of a risk for her. Even if it passes, it's only for one year. But that's at least $15 billion+ that WON'T go to pet projects.

HERE is some more about this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_pet_projects

The other joint effort, is the SAVE Act. An immigration bill that, from what I've read of it thus far has NO path to citizenship in it. And it stresses "attrition through enforcement." The choice that over 85% of the country prefers when dealing with illegals. Most polls usually only gave the options of "amnesty or deportation." When given the attrition option, almost everyone picks that.

The SAVE Act was introduced first by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and then introduced by Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and David Vitter (R-La.). Since it's introduction, they have been joined by a whole host of signers, both R's and D's, and it has also been endorsed by NumbersUSA.

HERE is more on this.
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html

One can only hope, that this sort of cooperation will continue. Although unlikely that it will, an oft recited phrase beckons to me in, "A man can dream, can't he?"

Article info provided by Yahoo/AP and NumbersUSA.

Hey Sharpton? Jackson? Where's Your Race Card Now?

That's right biotches. Let's see the Dynamic-Duo-Poverty-Pimps try to spin this into some form of racial discrimination now. If we even hear a peep out of these two racist bastards, it will only prove how racist THEY are. I DARE them to even try it.

For those who haven't heard yet, the Mississippi Democratic results have come in. And they completely trounce any of the "good 'ol boy" sentiments originally believed to exist in the South. The Mississippi population has a 3 to 1 ratio of Blacks over Whites. When broken down by race, here are the results;

Black vote; Obama 92% / Clinton 8%.

White vote; Obama 28% / Clinton 72%.

That means, even with a 3 to 1 ratio, more white people voted for a black than blacks voted for a white. In Mississippi? Say it isn't so! How could that happen when the south is comprised of nothing but a bunch of KKK members, as Sharpton and Jackson would have us believe?

Now yes, I do fully believe there are still some of those old crusty codgers roaming around with the "I'll never vote for a Black man," mentalities. I have no delusions on that note. But thankfully, it's a vanishing view.

Now if we could just get the Victi-Crats like Sharpton and Jackson out of the political and public pictures, perhaps that equality that the majority of the country actually believes in, could begin it's work and make things actually happen.

Until then, I'm afraid we're stuck with hearing how "da white man be keepin' da black man down," speeches, and calls for marches from these two uber-tards. Hopefully, there won't be any more DEATHS at their next rallies.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer is a DEMOCRAT: Just Say It!

Hey, what utter shock and surprise. Another political official taking a nose dive, and the media completely ignores the mention of him being a Democrat. How incredibly odd of them to omit such a factor.

Yeah, that's sarcasm. But in a day and age when only Republicans/Conservatives get their party noted in the news when they screw up does this really, I mean really surprise anyone anymore. It has become such the norm, that I'm beginning to believe that it just falls in step with the rest of the, "Tell a lie often enough, and people will start to believe it," bracket.

They did the same thing when it came to finding $90,000 cash in William J. "Dollar Bill" Jefferson's freezer. Same goes for Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his sex scandal. And once again, as expected, the "fair and balanced" media forgets the subject is a (D).

Here are just a couple links of the media's omission of such a detail;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_us/spitzer_prostitution

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html

So, as you guessed, as I'm sure most of you have already seen, New York DEMOCRATIC Gov. Eliot Spitzer is catching heat for a 'rent-a-muff' scandal. And, like most big scandals these days, it was apparently discovered over money. I guess it's true, you'll "Pay" for it, one way or the other.

Keith Olbermann: Biggest PUTZ In The World Award

While media's ratings continue to plummet to levels so low, they are almost OFF the charts, it's amazing that personages (as personalities is not an appropriate term here) like Kieth Olbermann still manage to exist on screen.

For those who don't know, President Bush's approval rating is in the low 30% bracket, which is pretty low. Our DEMOCRATICALLY controlled Congress' approval rating is now in the low 20% bracket. And our "fair and balanced" media's approval rating in the eyes of the public is now at 11%.

CNN has managed to recoup some of it's lost public favor by adding a Salute to the Troops segment which can be found on the morning express page, and shows multiple times throughout the morning newscast. And adding a ranting crazy Conservative to their evening broadcast in the form of Glenn Beck has actually brought a few viewers around by showing they can provide at least a little "balance" to their usually more liberal bent.

But, seeing how a lack of any actual investigative abilities is the norm for journalists these days, Keith fits right in as having to do nothing more than reading a teleprompter that is copy/pasted right from the pages of Media Matters.

Recently, Keith listed Glenn Beck as the "Worst Person in the World" for asking apocalyptic Pastor John Hagee if Clinton or Obama was the antichrist. Keith's summation of this (as obviously directed to ask by MM)? "Why do you ask, Glenn? Worried about somebody giving you competition?"

Is he serious? Keith... try Cranberry juice... lots of it... it will help to unstop the blockage. Or simply, unplug the teleprompter and do some actual newsworthy reporting. Please. Your making even more of a fool of yourself to your already plummeting viewers. It's actually becoming painful to see you suffer like this, which is amazing for even me to say.

Too bad Keith failed to mention what Pastor Hagee's response to the overtly joke of a question was. "No chance. He has a lot of charisma. There's a media love affair with him right now. He is a very forgivable political person."

But there's more background to this found HERE. Here is the text link; http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/7037/ .

Article info provided by GlennBeck.com.

Knock! Knock! Who's There? The California School Nazi's

Yeah, I know. That's a bit of an inflammatory title. But it reads pretty much as the situation actually is. Following Germany's recent decision to deny home schooling to children, California's 2nd District Court of Appeals issued a blanket ruling that unaccredited parents can not home school.

That's too bad. As what happens in California, usually tends to seep out across the nation. In California alone, this ruling affects well over 200 thousand kids, and places those children's parents on a criminal level with drug dealers, car thieves and the like.

What's also a shame is that the original case that was brought before the court was about just ONE family. How did we manage to to go from that, just one family, to any parent in California that isn't an accredited teacher is not allowed to home school?

Leading a charge against this stupidity is the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA.) You can find their info HERE. Here is the text link regarding this situation; http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803030.asp . There is also a petition available on this page for having the ruling depublished, which it obviously should be.

Also joining in on this mistaken excuse for a court decision, is Focus On The Family. You can find the press release by Focus HERE. Here is the Text link; http://www.focusonthefamily.com/press/pressreleases/A000001094.cfm . Also available is the radio broadcast to listen to the discussion between Focus' Dr. James Dobson and the HSLDA regarding the ruling.

NOW, all religious, conservative, liberal, democratic, partisan stuff aside, both sides of the fence should be able to see exactly what rulings like this can lead to. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is just one more "nanny state" maneuver in a list of many. Right off the bat, anyone should be able to determine there is an overt violation of a persons/families rights in this. And I won't bother to bore you with the comparisons of how most home schooled kids outscore publicly educated kids by leaps and bounds. That's just obvious info as it is.

In the end, this is just more imperialist judges, legislating from the bench, of which they really have no authority to do. And they really need to be made aware of it, in no uncertain terms.

Article info provided by HSLDA and Focus on the Family.

New York Times Square Blast: Foreign or Domestic Terrorism?

As I'm finding more and more often these days, it seems best to hold off, at least for a couple hours before tapping out stories. It provides the opportunity to collect more info, and let some of the crap articles get tossed aside. Case in point, the blast this morning in New Yorks Times Square. By now, you all will have heard of it.

As of this writing, there is still very little information available, so I'll give you what I've managed to collect thus far.

At approximately 3:45 am EST this morning, (Mar. 6th) a small explosive device detonated in Times Square New York, also known as the "Crossroads of the World." The device exploded outside and in front, of a military recruiting station which did as reported so far, minimal damage. And fortunately, there were no injuries reported.

Residents in the hotel in which the explosion occurred in front of said, they could feel and hear the bang of the blast as high up as the 44th floor.

There was apparently one individual who witnessed a suspicious person "in the area" at around the time of the explosion. The only description of this Suspicious Person was of a male wearing a hooded top, all dark clothing, carrying a backpack and riding a bike. Pretty vague in my opinion, but NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly advised they would be checking the areas surveillance camera recordings for any leads.

New York Gov. Michael Bloomberg was on hand this morning for a brief news conference of the incident. His statement was, "We are not intimidated." The subway that travels through the area had shut down because of the incident, but was up and running within a couple hours. The majority of businesses and facilities in the area of the blast had been re-opened for business by around 9:30 am EST. Bloomberg also mentioned that the explosive device had been placed in a military type ammo can, and set in front of the office. According to Bloomberg, this incident is unrelated to the bomb(s) tossed over the fence into the Mexican consulate.

Now here is the "just for some fun with speculation" part. Foreign or Domestic terrorism? Your call really. This can either be placed on par with bombings that seem to hit both police and military outposts in the middle east. Or it can be compared to the Code pinko's recent actions in Berkeley, Ca. where Military (Marine) Recruiters were labeled "intruders." Or even better, the incident in Washington, D.C. where the Code pinko's sent "THEIR KIDS" into the recruiting office to trash it.

Personally, since this incident happened in the wee hours, when no one was around, I'm going with Domestic terrorism. It looks to me as someone wanted to make a statement, but without injury to anyone. Thereby minimizing their criminality should they get caught.

Terrorist Television: Get Your Jihad On

A new-ish label has been generated by the U.S. Treasury Department. That of Specially Designated Global Terrorist or SDGT. And it's starting to see some use in the war on terror. Just last month a Syrian based t.v. channel, Al-Zawraa, got tagged for accepting funds from Al Qaeda.

In return, according to an article by Jonathan Schanzer on the National Review Online, they were apparently broadcasting coded messages through patriotic songs to the Islamic Army of Iraq, a Sunni terrorist group that continues to attack Iraqi citizens and American soldiers. Nice.

But who else is in need of scrutiny? Our wonderful (backstabbing) Saudi allies? Perhaps. Schanzer's article includes info about how another "jihadi-vision" station, al-Manar, which is apparently Hezbollah's 24-hour suicide channel, has two major up-time supporters. Those being Arabsat, which is headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the Egypt-owned Nilesat.

And this door only seems to swing one way when it comes to terrorist promotions. As it would appear, enough international pressure caused Hamas' al-Aqsa television to 'kill-off' their Mickey Mouse-like kiddie-jihad recruiter. (But they seem to have already replaced him with a bunny that "eats jews.") So much for those middle eastern easter egg hunts.

But anti-jihadists have found their counter videos on sites like YouTube, (which hosts thousands of these hate-filled terrorst videos,) being pulled and their accounts suspended for "Islamophobic" reasons as noted by Michelle Malkin.

But check out Schanzer's article HERE. It's a good read. Here is the text link for those who need it; http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzE1NTllYjU2NTc0ZDczZTM0MzkwNDIzMjZhYjJkZTQ .

Article info provided by the National Review Online.

La Raza: We Can Hate, But You Can't

Essentially, this is how it's beginning to look with some recent statements and actions by the group. La Raza and a few other open border/pro illegal organizations are pressuring media outlets, namely cable companies, to squash any dissent. They claim it's hate speech.

.............???..........

Okay, exactly when did freedom of speech when speaking about ILLEGAL immigration, become hate speech? According to a comment by Janet Murguia who is the president of the National Council of La Raza, "Hate groups and extremists have taken over the immigration debate in an unprecedented wave of hate," Murguia said. Although some comments could be considered free speech, "there is a line that sometimes can be crossed when it comes to free speech," she said.

It turns out, that Murguia was referring to comments being made about illegals such as an "army of invaders" or an "invading force." Referring to 20+ million individuals here in the U.S. illegally as an invading force is hate speech? Great....

What this amounts to in REALITY, and not the little fantasy land utopia these people inhabit in their own minds, is National Censorship. We either HAVE free speech, or we DON'T. If La Raza and some of these other groups, such as the Anti Defamation League want the right to speak out against anyone who is fighting amnesty, then they will have to "TOLERATE" those who are fighting it.

End of story, goodbye, that's a wrap!

For more on this, there are a couple links for you to visit HERE and HERE. Here are the text links for those who may require it.

http://www.numbersusa.com/news?ID=9681
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-31-hatespeech_N.htm

Article info provided by NumbersUSA and USAToday.

The Pressure's On (Dem's): Ogonowski Re-Challenges Kerry

The pressure continues to mount against Dem's as the elections approach. First it was John (our Marines are mass murderers) Murtha being challenged in his home court by Lt. Col. William Russell. Now John Kerry, who was almost defeated last round, faces a rematch.

Retired Air Force and Air National Guard Lt. Col. (retired after 28 years), Jim Ogonowski is taking another crack at John Kerry. Last time, Democrats / Kerry out spent Ogonowski by a ratio of nearly 5 to 1, and STILL almost lost. That does not bode well for Kerry's reputation.

Nor do I believe the "voted for the war, before voting against it," helps him much either. Especially now since there's almost nil reporting from our "fair and balanced" media since things have seriously improved in Iraq. But that's another issue entirely.

Lt. Col. Ogonowski's campaign web page can be found HERE. Here is the text link for those who may require it; https://www.jimogonowski.com/ .

Kerry will make two major liberal Senate seats that are being challenged. As I mentioned above, Murtha also faces ejection from the Senate. And with his (Murtha) riding high on the "most earmarks of 2007" list, and Kerry wasn't far behind, we may actually see two of our biggest tax and spend proliferates retired.

Putin to Medvedev as Fidel to Raul?

As it looks, Putin's somewhat of a stepping down and his hand picked replacement miraculously getting a huge majority of the votes really isn't fooling anyone. It's not just the opposition party in Russia that's not buying it. A healthy amount of the Russian populace isn't in favor of it either.

Perhaps enough of the Russian populace remembers what the Cold War was like there, and simply wants no part in a "Round 2." Yet, with Russia emerging once again as a Superpower, and making a lot of negative statements about America, we're likely to be headed in that direction again.

But this "trend" as it were, with those stepping down and being replaced by THEIR choice is reminiscent of another recent "election." That of Fidel Castro being replaced by his choice, his brother Raul, who also seems to have amazingly garnered an outrageous majority of the votes as well. Go figure.

NOTE: I haven't had a chance to really dig into the recent election events in Kenya enough to add it here as another ascension. So I'm not going to count it here yet.

There really isn't any arguing the coincidences in these two elections either. Especially here in America were we have been holding democratic elections for over 200 years now. That both "hand-picked" individuals, (Medved & R. Castro) weren't really elected, but simply stepped in and assumed power reeks of corruption.

Imagine the uproar if Bush decided to just go ahead and name a successor to the American presidency without a real election? Oh, we'd be able to vote, but the outcome was already determined to be HIS choice. There would be blood in the streets.

Another interesting similarity between these two ascensions to the dictatorship, erm.., I mean presidency are the open statements that both Medvedev and Raul Castro have made. In both cases, Medvedev and Castro have openly acknowledged that they will seek their predecessors council on state matters. So, the reality is, Fidel will still be in power, as will Putin, as Putin will be assuming the post of Prime Minister.

Why did either of them even bother to hold mock-lections anyways?