^.^
Last February, I gave my opinions on Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado, who referred to people working in the World Trade Center as "Little Eichmanns" in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
As far as I am concerned, I would not want to be associated with such a person, and if I were the university in Boulder, I would work toward dropping this guy like a rock. Sure, Mr. Churchill has a right to free speech, but as I have said before, just because you can asy something doesn't mean you should.
As I said last year, "I find these views to be utterly insulting and nonsensical, and I for one find comfort in the fact that the majority of the reaction on this subject from responsible human beings has been pretty much right where it should be...outright and utter condemnation."
However, I also said that Ward Churchill would be fired, but that it would not be because of his "Little Eichmanns" comment. Rather, Churchill will be fired because of his impropriety surrounding what was called in a statement by the Chancellor of the university, "research misconduct"...in other words, he plagarized some materials from others, and he simply made a whole bunch of stuff up.
Other allegations stem from the charge that Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity in order to gain employment at the university, and then to gain "credibility and an audience for scholarship", to quote the UC Chancellor's statement...which means that he tried to claim he was part American-Indian to give his research work more credibility and to give himself more academic standing. The committee that studied these allegations said that these particular accusations might represent "research misconduct and failure to meet the standards of professional integrity."
About mid-way down the statement, the Chancellor levels the verdict in this case:
"Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado, Boulder."
Of course, this is not quite over. Mr. Churchill may appeal the case, and it will then be heard by a special committee. He has also said that if he is fired by the university, he will turn around and sue them.
I think that the university should stick to their guns and rid themselves of an embarassment.
As a recent student, I must say that the primary goal of any facility of higher education is to provide students with what they need to get and keep a job within the American workplace. Most of everything else is window dressing.
Because of this, and because of the fact that students and parents PAY for the education they get at universities, while academia may like to trumpet their First Amendment rights, your First Amendment rights stop at the classroom door. I don't pay for YOUR opinions, or YOUR agendas. I pay for facts.
So, where do opinions come into the classroom, and they rightly do in some cases? When a discussion drifts into opinion, or when a professor asks for opinions, then I wouldn't have a problem. The presentation of opinions is an excellent way to challenge people's beliefs, which should happen. However, the professor should never present his or her opinions as the concrete fact, and students should never be tested on their professor's opinions, nor should they be penalized if they disagree with their professor. Now I must say that when I was able to detect a slant with a professor, they were never a part of the tests for those classes.
Another issue that comes up is that Ward Churchill's research has been spoiled by the use of bad research work, and flat-out plagarism. These are the bane of journalism, of general research work, and within my field of politics and history. People doing research in areas that Churchill worked in will not be able to faithfully use his works to support their arguments. Churchill's findings themselves should not be taken on their own, and basically, all of this becomes a big problem for people who advocate or are interested in these topics.
All around, research misconduct and plagarism are a big headache for professors who are professional in their work and their studies, as well as a big headache for students interested in turning in quality research.
The time for bashing Mr. Churchill over his insane comments is over. The "jury" has spoken in the case of his research misconduct and plagarism, and the verdict is clear.
Ward Churchill's days at Colorado University are numbered, and we should thank the leadership at the university for their decisive action.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Liberal Media Traitors
^.^
The Liberal media types have demonstrated that they are anti-American, and more specifically, anti-Bush. Anything that harms this country, or anything that might bring down the Bush administration, the Liberalistas thoroughly enjoy.
For example, in the United States, we have no problem referring to the fight against Osama bin Laden and his AL Qaeda cohorts as the War on Terror. No fooling around...no ambiguity...the context we are putting forward is pretty clear.
However, if you listen to the BBC, you will hear things like "America's war on terror," "the Bush Administration's war on terror," or "the so-called war on terror." It's as if not only did the attacks on September 11, 2001 not happen, but apparently, neither did the attacks in Bali, Madrid, and London, just to name a few. These sorts of things make me wonder whether the British media realizes that they too are involved in what President Bush has called the WORLDWIDE War on Terror. When the BBC uses the sorts of phrases that they do, they undermine our own efforts, because they fail to provide a united front against our mutual enemy. Not only this, but any effort to show the other side of the story...to show that the insurgents have their point against the "occupation forces" simply lends aid and comfort to the enemy.
However, the BBC can almost be forgiven. After all, they see themselves as cultured, and they see themselves as acting within the boundaries of objectivity. There are no such shelters given to the Liberal media in the United States.
The Liberal media has made their money on supporting Liberalistas in government, whether they were doing a good job or not...in fact, in some cases, the office holder barely needed to be competant to gain the support of the Liberal media.
To say that the Liberals were dismayed at the outcome of the election in 2000 would be an understatement of titanic proportions...in fact, that's why they spent a month trying to have recount after recount on top of recount after recount, because no matter what they did, they could not find enough hanging chads to give the election to Al Gore.
This is the basis for the Liberal hatred of President George W. Bush...the idea that he "stole" the election, and that he was not legitimate. Even the election of 2004 did nothing to change this...once again, Liberals screamed that the vote in Ohio had been stolen.
September 11, 2001 gave Liberals virtually nothing to move with. After all, the attack had happened on Bush's watch, and both he and the administration were quick to rally around the flag, and the hated fumes of patriotism were so thick in the air that the Patriot Act managed to get by both chambers of Congress and was signed by the President. Even the attack on Afghanistan could not be used by Liberals at the time it was launched...it was a largely successful war that got rid of the regime that harbored Osama bin Laden.
Iraq has been different. Despite all of the evidence presented by the administration to the contrary, Liberals have refused to believe that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda, they refuse to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction, and if it would have kept Bush from attacking, the Liberalistas would have said that Saddam was a nice guy who never oppressed his people, and was never a danger to his neighbors.
Since the US-led invasion of Iraq, and the overthrow of Saddam, the Liberal media has not missed one instance where they could blame the US or the Bush administration for some wrong. The death toll among Iraqi civilians was too high, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib was torture, the treatment of prisoners ar Guantanamo Bay is torture, the government is spying on arabs in the United States, and so on and so on. If the US forces in Iraq were to clean up the country tonight, if the Iraqi government were solidified, and if US forces were in the air on their way home, the Liberalistas would find some way to blame some small part of it on Bush.
As if the recent leaking of telephone monitoring was not enough, the New York Times released details on Bush administration monitoring of an international banking system, that tracks the transfer of money across international borders. This fact is important. The SWIFT system only keeps track of monetary transactions if they cross an international border...so when I write a check to pay my utility bill, SWIFT is not going to see it. If I pay rent on a condo in Abu Dhabi, then SWIFT will make note of it.
The Liberalistas have jumped all over this story, crying out that Americans' rights are being violated once again by an administration that is too secretive, an administration that wants to know private details of citizens' lives, an administration that is over-reaching, an administration that has lost the focus in the War on Terror and really should be continuing the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Except, as has been pointed out in several Conservative media outlets, the information carried by SWIFT is *NOT* private information. It is about money transactions between banks! Person A in Bank A sends money to person B in Bank B. Bank A wipes the money from their books, and sends a note to SWIFT informing Bank B to add the money to their books.
The United States used "broad subpoenas" to gain access to the SWIFT records, which show the name and address of known terrorists who are using international banking to move money around the world. In other words, the Feds were acting legally in gaining these records which allowed them to keep tabs on terrorists and their money.
With the outing of this program, it is likely that the terrorists will try to switch their money transfers to some form that does not use the international banking system. This may be a bit hard considering the reach and scope of the international banking system, but now that they know that it is one of the ways that we track them, they will probably try to avoid the system.
The Liberalistas and the media have taken a tool that the government has been using in the War on Terror and thrown it away. It is one thing for the BBC to sit in London and be delusional about somehow being a safe distance away from the global War on Terror.
It is quite another thing to be an American newspaper that is doing their best to aid the enemy.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
The Liberal media types have demonstrated that they are anti-American, and more specifically, anti-Bush. Anything that harms this country, or anything that might bring down the Bush administration, the Liberalistas thoroughly enjoy.
For example, in the United States, we have no problem referring to the fight against Osama bin Laden and his AL Qaeda cohorts as the War on Terror. No fooling around...no ambiguity...the context we are putting forward is pretty clear.
However, if you listen to the BBC, you will hear things like "America's war on terror," "the Bush Administration's war on terror," or "the so-called war on terror." It's as if not only did the attacks on September 11, 2001 not happen, but apparently, neither did the attacks in Bali, Madrid, and London, just to name a few. These sorts of things make me wonder whether the British media realizes that they too are involved in what President Bush has called the WORLDWIDE War on Terror. When the BBC uses the sorts of phrases that they do, they undermine our own efforts, because they fail to provide a united front against our mutual enemy. Not only this, but any effort to show the other side of the story...to show that the insurgents have their point against the "occupation forces" simply lends aid and comfort to the enemy.
However, the BBC can almost be forgiven. After all, they see themselves as cultured, and they see themselves as acting within the boundaries of objectivity. There are no such shelters given to the Liberal media in the United States.
The Liberal media has made their money on supporting Liberalistas in government, whether they were doing a good job or not...in fact, in some cases, the office holder barely needed to be competant to gain the support of the Liberal media.
To say that the Liberals were dismayed at the outcome of the election in 2000 would be an understatement of titanic proportions...in fact, that's why they spent a month trying to have recount after recount on top of recount after recount, because no matter what they did, they could not find enough hanging chads to give the election to Al Gore.
This is the basis for the Liberal hatred of President George W. Bush...the idea that he "stole" the election, and that he was not legitimate. Even the election of 2004 did nothing to change this...once again, Liberals screamed that the vote in Ohio had been stolen.
September 11, 2001 gave Liberals virtually nothing to move with. After all, the attack had happened on Bush's watch, and both he and the administration were quick to rally around the flag, and the hated fumes of patriotism were so thick in the air that the Patriot Act managed to get by both chambers of Congress and was signed by the President. Even the attack on Afghanistan could not be used by Liberals at the time it was launched...it was a largely successful war that got rid of the regime that harbored Osama bin Laden.
Iraq has been different. Despite all of the evidence presented by the administration to the contrary, Liberals have refused to believe that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda, they refuse to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction, and if it would have kept Bush from attacking, the Liberalistas would have said that Saddam was a nice guy who never oppressed his people, and was never a danger to his neighbors.
Since the US-led invasion of Iraq, and the overthrow of Saddam, the Liberal media has not missed one instance where they could blame the US or the Bush administration for some wrong. The death toll among Iraqi civilians was too high, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib was torture, the treatment of prisoners ar Guantanamo Bay is torture, the government is spying on arabs in the United States, and so on and so on. If the US forces in Iraq were to clean up the country tonight, if the Iraqi government were solidified, and if US forces were in the air on their way home, the Liberalistas would find some way to blame some small part of it on Bush.
As if the recent leaking of telephone monitoring was not enough, the New York Times released details on Bush administration monitoring of an international banking system, that tracks the transfer of money across international borders. This fact is important. The SWIFT system only keeps track of monetary transactions if they cross an international border...so when I write a check to pay my utility bill, SWIFT is not going to see it. If I pay rent on a condo in Abu Dhabi, then SWIFT will make note of it.
The Liberalistas have jumped all over this story, crying out that Americans' rights are being violated once again by an administration that is too secretive, an administration that wants to know private details of citizens' lives, an administration that is over-reaching, an administration that has lost the focus in the War on Terror and really should be continuing the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Except, as has been pointed out in several Conservative media outlets, the information carried by SWIFT is *NOT* private information. It is about money transactions between banks! Person A in Bank A sends money to person B in Bank B. Bank A wipes the money from their books, and sends a note to SWIFT informing Bank B to add the money to their books.
The United States used "broad subpoenas" to gain access to the SWIFT records, which show the name and address of known terrorists who are using international banking to move money around the world. In other words, the Feds were acting legally in gaining these records which allowed them to keep tabs on terrorists and their money.
With the outing of this program, it is likely that the terrorists will try to switch their money transfers to some form that does not use the international banking system. This may be a bit hard considering the reach and scope of the international banking system, but now that they know that it is one of the ways that we track them, they will probably try to avoid the system.
The Liberalistas and the media have taken a tool that the government has been using in the War on Terror and thrown it away. It is one thing for the BBC to sit in London and be delusional about somehow being a safe distance away from the global War on Terror.
It is quite another thing to be an American newspaper that is doing their best to aid the enemy.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Monday, June 19, 2006
On Ann Coulter
^.^
As you may know, conservative commentator Ann Coulter has put out a book entitled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", and in it, she makes some statements that on first blush, seem to be beyond the pale.
The assertion that the media and the liberals have pcked up on is found in Chapter 5 of the book, where Ann talks about how liberals have reacted with outrage to the fact that rather than a media monologue, todays's citizen is treated to a dialogue, where BOTH sides of the political spectrum have a voice. The liberals who used to run the media don't like this one bit, so they had to come up with some vehicle that would allow them to push their message without anyone being able to dispute it.
The perfect vehicle for the liberal message has been people like Cindy Sheehan, and the women that Ann Coulter refers to as the "Jersey Girls"...women who lost their husbands in the attacks on September 11. On pages 102-103 of "Godless", Coulter goes on to describe how the Jersey Girls have taken their anti-Bush campaign to the media...who just gobbles this stuff up. They've attacked Bush for not responding to the 9/11 attacks quicker, and they've acted as though all of the events on that day were about THEM, as if the pain felt by the rest of the nation matters nothing.
Then Ann gets to this statement:
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
This of course gets the liberal bleeding hearts all worked up into a tizzy. How COULD she be so mean? This has led to even some conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly saying that she went too far in her remarks. Some lawmakers in New Jersey tried to get the book banned from the bookshelves (as if people could not jump the state lines and buy the book in Pennsylvania or something...) Hillary Clinton called the comments "mean to women".
Of course, all of the attention has only helped sales of the book, which has reached the #1 spot on the New York Times list.
Now that we have the facts and background, it's time for my take on the situation, and my take is:
GOOD FOR ANN! YOU GO, GIRL!
Now of course comes the question of why I think this way, and it is simple. This is in the spirit of levelling the playing field a bit. The left has had bomb-throwers like Al Franken and Michael Moore since the 1990s, but somehow when a conservative emerges that is not soft-spoken and defferential, we're supposed to send them to the gallows? I think not!
Ann Coulter has said something that needs to be said, even within the controversial statements in Chapter 5 of her book.
Think about it this way... When I say something privately to someone else, it is none of your business what that is, and you have no right to criticise it. However, when I step on THIS platform, and give you my opinion on something, you are encouraged to respond...whether you agree with me or not. Unchallenged beliefs are worthless.
The same is true of the Jersey Girls. It is one thing to be a victim, and we all sympathize with the Jersey Girls in the loss of their loved ones, and we all sympathize with Cindy Sheehan in the loss of her son.
However, when you as a victim step onto the political stage and make policy statements, your opinions and statements become fair game for criticism.
Once you get past the "mean" in Ann Coulter's statement about the Jersey Girls and if you read it in the context of the rest of the chapter, you see the point she is trying to make...that liberals have tried to hide their message behind other people's misery...beause we dare not speak bad of those who have recently went through a tragedy.
Ann Coulter has seen through this tactic, and she has spoke out about it in Ann Coulter fashion, by being a firebrand, a controversial figure...someone who will always get a LOT of press simply for being the way she is.
The Left has Al Franken, Michael Moore, the Jersey Girls, CIndy Sheehan, SUFP and the rest of the anti-war ranters, the Daily Kos, and etc...
We have Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter!
Good for our side!
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
As you may know, conservative commentator Ann Coulter has put out a book entitled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", and in it, she makes some statements that on first blush, seem to be beyond the pale.
The assertion that the media and the liberals have pcked up on is found in Chapter 5 of the book, where Ann talks about how liberals have reacted with outrage to the fact that rather than a media monologue, todays's citizen is treated to a dialogue, where BOTH sides of the political spectrum have a voice. The liberals who used to run the media don't like this one bit, so they had to come up with some vehicle that would allow them to push their message without anyone being able to dispute it.
The perfect vehicle for the liberal message has been people like Cindy Sheehan, and the women that Ann Coulter refers to as the "Jersey Girls"...women who lost their husbands in the attacks on September 11. On pages 102-103 of "Godless", Coulter goes on to describe how the Jersey Girls have taken their anti-Bush campaign to the media...who just gobbles this stuff up. They've attacked Bush for not responding to the 9/11 attacks quicker, and they've acted as though all of the events on that day were about THEM, as if the pain felt by the rest of the nation matters nothing.
Then Ann gets to this statement:
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
This of course gets the liberal bleeding hearts all worked up into a tizzy. How COULD she be so mean? This has led to even some conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly saying that she went too far in her remarks. Some lawmakers in New Jersey tried to get the book banned from the bookshelves (as if people could not jump the state lines and buy the book in Pennsylvania or something...) Hillary Clinton called the comments "mean to women".
Of course, all of the attention has only helped sales of the book, which has reached the #1 spot on the New York Times list.
Now that we have the facts and background, it's time for my take on the situation, and my take is:
GOOD FOR ANN! YOU GO, GIRL!
Now of course comes the question of why I think this way, and it is simple. This is in the spirit of levelling the playing field a bit. The left has had bomb-throwers like Al Franken and Michael Moore since the 1990s, but somehow when a conservative emerges that is not soft-spoken and defferential, we're supposed to send them to the gallows? I think not!
Ann Coulter has said something that needs to be said, even within the controversial statements in Chapter 5 of her book.
Think about it this way... When I say something privately to someone else, it is none of your business what that is, and you have no right to criticise it. However, when I step on THIS platform, and give you my opinion on something, you are encouraged to respond...whether you agree with me or not. Unchallenged beliefs are worthless.
The same is true of the Jersey Girls. It is one thing to be a victim, and we all sympathize with the Jersey Girls in the loss of their loved ones, and we all sympathize with Cindy Sheehan in the loss of her son.
However, when you as a victim step onto the political stage and make policy statements, your opinions and statements become fair game for criticism.
Once you get past the "mean" in Ann Coulter's statement about the Jersey Girls and if you read it in the context of the rest of the chapter, you see the point she is trying to make...that liberals have tried to hide their message behind other people's misery...beause we dare not speak bad of those who have recently went through a tragedy.
Ann Coulter has seen through this tactic, and she has spoke out about it in Ann Coulter fashion, by being a firebrand, a controversial figure...someone who will always get a LOT of press simply for being the way she is.
The Left has Al Franken, Michael Moore, the Jersey Girls, CIndy Sheehan, SUFP and the rest of the anti-war ranters, the Daily Kos, and etc...
We have Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter!
Good for our side!
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Thursday, June 15, 2006
C2C: Secret Societies Are Gonna Kill Us All!!
^.^
This is the second in what will be a series of essays on why Coast to Coast AM is actually dangerous to American society.
The last time I talked about this, I talked about how C2C is so self-absorbed with what they believe to be their role in US politics. At the time, the story of Dubai Ports World was making all sorts of splashy news, and C2C took credit for breaking the story, pushing the story, and then claiming credit when the deal fell through. Of course, the story broke months before C2C was even aware of it, and although the C2C audience is large, it is largely comprised of people who are out there on the fringes, listening to conspiracy theorists, alien stories, ghost stories, and etc.
C2C even admits that they have guests on who are outside the mainstream of society, in part because these people would never see the light of day on a regular television show or on the radio. The show is basically entertainment for those who are likely to believe that if the aliens don't get us, we'll either be killed by the secret government agents, or blown up by whatever asteroid hits planet Earth.
Anyway, last night's show featured a discussion on the Bilderberg Group, a supposedly secretive group that recently held its annual meeting in Ottawa, Canada. The discussion was moderated by George Noory, and had bomb-thrower Alex Jones, researcher Jim Marrs and journalist Daniel Estulin. Please note that Mr. Jones was the person who organized this discussion, with help from the show's producer.
The following is a couple excerpts from the C2C website information on the discussion, so you can get a bit of a feel for what was discussed...
"...They want to bring about globalism-- a one-world government and economy-- but they are trying to push it through using secrecy and deceit, Marrs commented..."
"...Their real name though is the Synarchist Movement, he [Estulin] said, and the group of around 125 wields so much control because many of its members are the heads of nations or powerful organizations such as the Central Banks & NATO..."
"The Bilderberg group was mainly founded with Nazi money, said Jones, who pointed out that until recently the US press never reported on the group-- but now the secretive yearly meeting is starting to get mainstream news coverage...."
"Marrs added that it appears they are "running scared" as though they were on a deadline, possibly due to upcoming geophysical changes."
When taken at face value, all of this sounds really SCARY! Secret organizations that want to take over the world are plotting to do so through the corporate boardrooms and the political smok-filled chambers of power? And they control the economy through globalism and the World Bank? And they control politics through electing those that serve their whims? And they want to wipe out 85% of humanity?
Sounds really scary. We should do something about these people.
Except that these groups are not that secretive, and not that scary.
First, the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, the main American "secret" group often supplies people to appear on spots on FOX News and other news outlets. Another "secret society" even allowed the BBC to enter their property in the UK and interview people. And look at this Ottawa meeting...Alex Jones made a big deal about how these people like to conduct their proceedings in private, yet these people checked in to a meeting room in Ottawa, and Alex Jones stood outside with a bullhorn and went about exposing the group as much as he could.
For a group that is supposed to be a secret, there is certainly a lot of information on them.
And look at the situation we are left in. We are at the mercy of these people. Why? Because if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the bad guys already control the highest echelons of not only our own government, but governments all over the world...not to mention many of the major businesses, and much of the media world as well.
However, if we use the prism of the conspiracy theorists of C2C and look at the gigantic world order of the Illuminati, we see a plot to take over the planet that would make the villain of Inspector Gadget (Dr. Claw) proud. You see, the Bilderberg group controls NATO, and NATO is involved in both Serbia and Afghanistan...both powerhouses in the world of global politics...I mean world finance...I mean military force...I mean...you get the picture.
The cabal of C2C conspiracy theorists were then asked what should be done to curtail the power that this group holds, and the first response was "Outlaw TV." Like PBS, and cable TV are responsible for the secret societies and getting the word out to the masses... Rather than join a massive campaign to out the bad guys, we're supposed to censor ourselves a bunch. Sounds like a nice plan.
And they put so little faith in the nation-state, a system of governance that has been around for quite a while, if you go back to the founding of Rome. Nations are generally strong, resilient things which tend to ward off upheavals such as wars, depressions, rebellions, and natural disasters. In the case of secret societies, I have to believe that if nation-states were that damn weak, that we would be under the heel of the Illuminati by now.
In the end, we're talking about people who believe that George Bush was directly responsible for the attack on 9/11. They don't believe that the Pentagon was hit by a plane...rather a missile of some sort hit the building. These guys see government prison camps and black helicopters where-ever they look.
As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theorists on C2C are worth a hearty laugh...not a shiver of fear.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
This is the second in what will be a series of essays on why Coast to Coast AM is actually dangerous to American society.
The last time I talked about this, I talked about how C2C is so self-absorbed with what they believe to be their role in US politics. At the time, the story of Dubai Ports World was making all sorts of splashy news, and C2C took credit for breaking the story, pushing the story, and then claiming credit when the deal fell through. Of course, the story broke months before C2C was even aware of it, and although the C2C audience is large, it is largely comprised of people who are out there on the fringes, listening to conspiracy theorists, alien stories, ghost stories, and etc.
C2C even admits that they have guests on who are outside the mainstream of society, in part because these people would never see the light of day on a regular television show or on the radio. The show is basically entertainment for those who are likely to believe that if the aliens don't get us, we'll either be killed by the secret government agents, or blown up by whatever asteroid hits planet Earth.
Anyway, last night's show featured a discussion on the Bilderberg Group, a supposedly secretive group that recently held its annual meeting in Ottawa, Canada. The discussion was moderated by George Noory, and had bomb-thrower Alex Jones, researcher Jim Marrs and journalist Daniel Estulin. Please note that Mr. Jones was the person who organized this discussion, with help from the show's producer.
The following is a couple excerpts from the C2C website information on the discussion, so you can get a bit of a feel for what was discussed...
"...They want to bring about globalism-- a one-world government and economy-- but they are trying to push it through using secrecy and deceit, Marrs commented..."
"...Their real name though is the Synarchist Movement, he [Estulin] said, and the group of around 125 wields so much control because many of its members are the heads of nations or powerful organizations such as the Central Banks & NATO..."
"The Bilderberg group was mainly founded with Nazi money, said Jones, who pointed out that until recently the US press never reported on the group-- but now the secretive yearly meeting is starting to get mainstream news coverage...."
"Marrs added that it appears they are "running scared" as though they were on a deadline, possibly due to upcoming geophysical changes."
When taken at face value, all of this sounds really SCARY! Secret organizations that want to take over the world are plotting to do so through the corporate boardrooms and the political smok-filled chambers of power? And they control the economy through globalism and the World Bank? And they control politics through electing those that serve their whims? And they want to wipe out 85% of humanity?
Sounds really scary. We should do something about these people.
Except that these groups are not that secretive, and not that scary.
First, the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, the main American "secret" group often supplies people to appear on spots on FOX News and other news outlets. Another "secret society" even allowed the BBC to enter their property in the UK and interview people. And look at this Ottawa meeting...Alex Jones made a big deal about how these people like to conduct their proceedings in private, yet these people checked in to a meeting room in Ottawa, and Alex Jones stood outside with a bullhorn and went about exposing the group as much as he could.
For a group that is supposed to be a secret, there is certainly a lot of information on them.
And look at the situation we are left in. We are at the mercy of these people. Why? Because if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the bad guys already control the highest echelons of not only our own government, but governments all over the world...not to mention many of the major businesses, and much of the media world as well.
However, if we use the prism of the conspiracy theorists of C2C and look at the gigantic world order of the Illuminati, we see a plot to take over the planet that would make the villain of Inspector Gadget (Dr. Claw) proud. You see, the Bilderberg group controls NATO, and NATO is involved in both Serbia and Afghanistan...both powerhouses in the world of global politics...I mean world finance...I mean military force...I mean...you get the picture.
The cabal of C2C conspiracy theorists were then asked what should be done to curtail the power that this group holds, and the first response was "Outlaw TV." Like PBS, and cable TV are responsible for the secret societies and getting the word out to the masses... Rather than join a massive campaign to out the bad guys, we're supposed to censor ourselves a bunch. Sounds like a nice plan.
And they put so little faith in the nation-state, a system of governance that has been around for quite a while, if you go back to the founding of Rome. Nations are generally strong, resilient things which tend to ward off upheavals such as wars, depressions, rebellions, and natural disasters. In the case of secret societies, I have to believe that if nation-states were that damn weak, that we would be under the heel of the Illuminati by now.
In the end, we're talking about people who believe that George Bush was directly responsible for the attack on 9/11. They don't believe that the Pentagon was hit by a plane...rather a missile of some sort hit the building. These guys see government prison camps and black helicopters where-ever they look.
As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theorists on C2C are worth a hearty laugh...not a shiver of fear.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
C2C Commentary: Mother Nature is Gonna Kill Us All!
^.^
My current job as a newspaper carrier requires that I be up at 2:30 AM to be delivering newspapers, which are supposed to be on my subscribers' porches by 6:30...and they are...and my subscribers LOVE me.
It also means that I listen to at least one hour of Coast to Coast AM, which runs from 11 PM to 2 AM, and then the first two hours are repeated on the local radio station. I ususally listen to the hour up until 4 AM and then switch to the local NPR station to catch one hour of BBC news and then one hour of NPR news...by about which time I am done with the routes.
So, now that you know that I am cultured...
Coast to Coast AM is the biggest early-morning talk show in the US. It was started by Art Bell initially as a politics/opinion show, but then morphed into the current science/science-fiction/mystery/supernatural/UFO/occult/etc show that it is now. I tune in for entertainment purposes...and to find out exactly how everyone in the world is going to die today.
Whether it be from a comet strike, a massive solar flare, mad cow disease, bird flu, an alien invasion, our military doing experiments with the ionosphere (HARP), the government's attempts to impose total control over the people, the secret societies, the Illuminati, global warming, the Yellowstone volcano, or The Day After Tomorrow (co-written by Art Bell)...it appears that we are all going to die from some sort of cataclysm, and Coast to Coast is there to warn us and inform us...
The problem I have with C2C is that they are so self-absorbed. They bring us these perils, they put on people who are "experts" who back up the hysteria, and then they sorta pat themselves on the back for keeping people informed to these potential dangers. For example, in the matter of the US ports deal being done by Dubai Ports World, C2C credited itself with breaking the story, and then with stopping the deal. "We won one," C2C host George Noory said to the audience in the aftermath of government moves to kill the deal.
Of course, C2C had little to do with the progress of the deal or the story of DP World and the US ports...but the fact that C2C thinks that it is a prime mover in these sorts of things means that they can then put forward hysterical doom & gloom stories, pat themselves on the back for bring us the warnings, etc, etc...
Recently, George Noory had Linda M. Howe as a guest on the show. She had done a special investigation into global warming, and she came on the show with grim news. The environment is nearing the point of no return, and soon we will be experiencing an environment that has not been experienced since the age of the dinosaurs. The ice sheets of Greenland and the Arctic were going to melt, the sea level was going to rise at least three feet, coastal areas were going to be sunk, the snow atop Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone in nine years, and the people who rely on snowcap for water will become "environmental refugees", and we're all going to die...
Now, I don't totally discount the possibility of mankind being a cause or contributing factor to global warming, simply because mankind has had an increasing inpact on the environment since the Industrial revolution of the 1800s. Over the past 200 years, we have had an increasing ability to mold the environment to support and service our needs.
However, to say that mankind is the only factor, or the main factor in global warming is a stretch. For one thing, even the scientific guests that appear on C2C don't agree on the causes of global warming. One scientist points out that there is a chain of volcanoes under the Arctic Ocean, or in the northern Pacific. These volcanoes heat the area to about 3000 degrees, and spew all kinds of CO2 into the air...CO2 being the primary cause of global warming. Even if you take this particular set of facts out of the equation, there is still the fact that land-based volcanic eruptions spew all sorts of soot and ash into the air, which contributes to the general environment. Another C2C scientist believes that the culprit behind global warming is not CO2, but water vapor...so even the scientists who come on C2C as guests can not agree on the cause of global warming.
The hysteria at C2C also discounts other factors in the global environment. They hype the melting of the ice in Greenland. Art Bell practically ridiculed a caller who pointed out that the Vikings colonized and farmed Greenland...before the mini ice age of 1320 or so to the mid 1400s. This actually happened...they have records of this, yet it was splashed by C2C. So, this means that the conditions we are seeing on Greenland happened before, they are happening now, and they will happen again. C2C points at the breakdown of the North Atlantic conveyor current that keeps Europe's weather moderate during the winter, but they poo-poo the notion that snowfall in other parts of the far north has any effect whatsoever to off-set the melting being seen in Greenland and elsewhere.
Finally, C2C seems to think that the United States is a major contributor to the problem...us with all our cars and industry. They miss several facts, like that the US is continuously trying to green up its industry. A global map produced by NASA a year or so ago showed that North America is one of the lowest producers of atmospheric pollution in the world. The other fact that C2C misses is also indicated by the same map, which shows that southern and eastern Asia produce the most atmospheric pollution. C2C misses the fact that India, with its 600 million people, and China with its roughly 3 billion people are just now going through industrialization, which means that they are busy putting up factories, building roads, and driving cars, and like the US and Britain and the rest of Europe at this point in their development, neither China nor India have much in the way of regulation over the industrialization of their country...which means that they can throw pollution into the air with little concern for their own people, or the general environment.
Note that one of the reasons that the Kyoto Accord was not ratified by the United States was because China and India were not included...meaning that the countries responsible for the most pollution did not have to adopt any restrictions.
Coast to Coast AM is good when it comes to entertainment. But as a source for news, it falls flat.
It also fails when it comes to informing us about possible "threats" because the show then turns around and congratulates itself for bringing the news. Finally, it also fails because differing points are not given serious consideration while the point they want to push is given little criticism.
There are a couple other issues that C2C brings each morning that I want to talk about. They will be easy to spot...just look for "C2C Commentary".
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
My current job as a newspaper carrier requires that I be up at 2:30 AM to be delivering newspapers, which are supposed to be on my subscribers' porches by 6:30...and they are...and my subscribers LOVE me.
It also means that I listen to at least one hour of Coast to Coast AM, which runs from 11 PM to 2 AM, and then the first two hours are repeated on the local radio station. I ususally listen to the hour up until 4 AM and then switch to the local NPR station to catch one hour of BBC news and then one hour of NPR news...by about which time I am done with the routes.
So, now that you know that I am cultured...
Coast to Coast AM is the biggest early-morning talk show in the US. It was started by Art Bell initially as a politics/opinion show, but then morphed into the current science/science-fiction/mystery/supernatural/UFO/occult/etc show that it is now. I tune in for entertainment purposes...and to find out exactly how everyone in the world is going to die today.
Whether it be from a comet strike, a massive solar flare, mad cow disease, bird flu, an alien invasion, our military doing experiments with the ionosphere (HARP), the government's attempts to impose total control over the people, the secret societies, the Illuminati, global warming, the Yellowstone volcano, or The Day After Tomorrow (co-written by Art Bell)...it appears that we are all going to die from some sort of cataclysm, and Coast to Coast is there to warn us and inform us...
The problem I have with C2C is that they are so self-absorbed. They bring us these perils, they put on people who are "experts" who back up the hysteria, and then they sorta pat themselves on the back for keeping people informed to these potential dangers. For example, in the matter of the US ports deal being done by Dubai Ports World, C2C credited itself with breaking the story, and then with stopping the deal. "We won one," C2C host George Noory said to the audience in the aftermath of government moves to kill the deal.
Of course, C2C had little to do with the progress of the deal or the story of DP World and the US ports...but the fact that C2C thinks that it is a prime mover in these sorts of things means that they can then put forward hysterical doom & gloom stories, pat themselves on the back for bring us the warnings, etc, etc...
Recently, George Noory had Linda M. Howe as a guest on the show. She had done a special investigation into global warming, and she came on the show with grim news. The environment is nearing the point of no return, and soon we will be experiencing an environment that has not been experienced since the age of the dinosaurs. The ice sheets of Greenland and the Arctic were going to melt, the sea level was going to rise at least three feet, coastal areas were going to be sunk, the snow atop Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone in nine years, and the people who rely on snowcap for water will become "environmental refugees", and we're all going to die...
Now, I don't totally discount the possibility of mankind being a cause or contributing factor to global warming, simply because mankind has had an increasing inpact on the environment since the Industrial revolution of the 1800s. Over the past 200 years, we have had an increasing ability to mold the environment to support and service our needs.
However, to say that mankind is the only factor, or the main factor in global warming is a stretch. For one thing, even the scientific guests that appear on C2C don't agree on the causes of global warming. One scientist points out that there is a chain of volcanoes under the Arctic Ocean, or in the northern Pacific. These volcanoes heat the area to about 3000 degrees, and spew all kinds of CO2 into the air...CO2 being the primary cause of global warming. Even if you take this particular set of facts out of the equation, there is still the fact that land-based volcanic eruptions spew all sorts of soot and ash into the air, which contributes to the general environment. Another C2C scientist believes that the culprit behind global warming is not CO2, but water vapor...so even the scientists who come on C2C as guests can not agree on the cause of global warming.
The hysteria at C2C also discounts other factors in the global environment. They hype the melting of the ice in Greenland. Art Bell practically ridiculed a caller who pointed out that the Vikings colonized and farmed Greenland...before the mini ice age of 1320 or so to the mid 1400s. This actually happened...they have records of this, yet it was splashed by C2C. So, this means that the conditions we are seeing on Greenland happened before, they are happening now, and they will happen again. C2C points at the breakdown of the North Atlantic conveyor current that keeps Europe's weather moderate during the winter, but they poo-poo the notion that snowfall in other parts of the far north has any effect whatsoever to off-set the melting being seen in Greenland and elsewhere.
Finally, C2C seems to think that the United States is a major contributor to the problem...us with all our cars and industry. They miss several facts, like that the US is continuously trying to green up its industry. A global map produced by NASA a year or so ago showed that North America is one of the lowest producers of atmospheric pollution in the world. The other fact that C2C misses is also indicated by the same map, which shows that southern and eastern Asia produce the most atmospheric pollution. C2C misses the fact that India, with its 600 million people, and China with its roughly 3 billion people are just now going through industrialization, which means that they are busy putting up factories, building roads, and driving cars, and like the US and Britain and the rest of Europe at this point in their development, neither China nor India have much in the way of regulation over the industrialization of their country...which means that they can throw pollution into the air with little concern for their own people, or the general environment.
Note that one of the reasons that the Kyoto Accord was not ratified by the United States was because China and India were not included...meaning that the countries responsible for the most pollution did not have to adopt any restrictions.
Coast to Coast AM is good when it comes to entertainment. But as a source for news, it falls flat.
It also fails when it comes to informing us about possible "threats" because the show then turns around and congratulates itself for bringing the news. Finally, it also fails because differing points are not given serious consideration while the point they want to push is given little criticism.
There are a couple other issues that C2C brings each morning that I want to talk about. They will be easy to spot...just look for "C2C Commentary".
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Friday, June 09, 2006
Perverted Boys Meeting Stoopid Girls
^.^
First, a couple definitions...
STOOPID (n) - An act that is so dumb or ignorant as to go beyond even the boundaries of the definiaiton of normal stupidity.
STOOPIDITY (n) - An action currently being engaged in that would be considered STOOPID.
Alrighty.
The topic mentioned in the title has come up because of at least four stories in the news recently.
The first is the case of the Duke "rape" case, and I put "rape" in quotes because we have a victim who was seen at another party before she attended the one she was "raped" at, another woman who was with her called the rape allegations "a crock", and the DNA samples from the victim did not match up to the three people arrested. This to me is a defense lawyer's dream case.
The second story is the murder of Tiffany Souers, a student at Clemson University. Ms. Souers was killed by a sexual predator who described himself as " a monster". This man, Jerry Buck Inman, has spent time in jail in Florida for sexual assault, and he recently broke into another woman's house, and was about to rape and murder her. She apparently said that she told Inman about God, and how He would forgive Inman for his sins...or something like that. This worked, and Inman simply stole some money and left the scene. In the case of Ms. Souers, Inman strangled her to death with her bikini top, and now may face the death penalty for his vicious crimes.
Next, we have the story of a teenage woman who made the high-school honor roll, ending up in Jordan. We'll exerpt from Fox News for the details on this case:
A 16-year-old honor student from Michigan tricked her parents into getting her a passport and then flew off to the Mideast to be with a West Bank man she met on MySpace.com, authorities say.
U.S. officials in Jordan persuaded her to turn around and go home before she reached the West Bank. She was on her way home Friday.
Katherine R. Lester is a straight-A student and student council member, her father said. "She's a good girl. Never had a problem with her," Terry Lester said.
Katherine disappeared Monday after talking her family into getting her a passport by saying she was going to Canada with friends, sheriff's officials said. She apparently planned to visit a man whose MySpace account describes him as a 25-year-old from Jericho, Undersheriff James Jashinske said.
And finally, we have the story of 15-year old Jason Pickler, who met a 10-year old Michigan girl online. The two had an online friendship for the next 1 1/2 years, until Mr. Pickler, now 17, and the unidentified girl, now 12, decided that they were in love.
According to the story in the Casper Star-Tribune of June 10, 2006, Pickler confided in his parents, who apparently agreed to attempt to gain custody of the girl should Pickler himself not be able to do so. Pickler then went out to Michigan, met with the girl, who gathered her things, and came back to Wyoming with Pickler. Pickler has been charged with kidnapping and custodial interference, and faces up to 25 years in jail.
I tell you these stories because we have in each of them a case of either a perverted boy or man, and/or a girl or woman who makes some rather questionalbe..OH Ok, STOOPID decisions.
And stoopidity is not limited to these cases. Remember the case last year of the "runaway bride"? Well news update, the wedding's been called off again...this time, the husband has left...probably the best thing he could do for his sanity.
I guess my point here is that just when I think we've reached the bottom of the barrel as far as male sexual predators go...just when I think that THIS TIME they've caught the scum of the earth, another case is revealed that makes me shake my head and ask WHAT? in a sort of tone that sounds like I can't believe anyone would be that STOOPID.
And on the other side, after EONS of women fighting for their rights, fending off sexual predators, through the advent of self-defense courses, pepper spray, and just sheer knowledge, you would think that girls and women would get the point. Yet some of the women in these cases clearly were on the STOOPID pill or something.
These cases show why parents must do more to protect their children, both boys and girls from those who would do serious harm to them. Even after they are out on their own, parents should be there to relate to their children as responsible adults and be ready and watchful for trouble.
I don't want to scare anyone, but the stories I have highlighted show that there is trouble out there in the hinterland, and sometimes even adults, or "responsible" children don't have the intelligence not to get themselves into seriously dangerous situations.
And I hope that these stories put to rest the notion that the Internet is simply the children's playground. Places like MySpace and Yahoo chat are nice when used responsibly, but as the Lester story proves, these places can be extremely dangerous, as people hide themselves behind the Anonymous monicker, or use fake identities.
And if you think children are not visiting adult websites, think again. Most adult sites simply ask if you are 18 or older before letting you in, and the websites are not babysitters...they rely on your honesty to click NO if you are under-age. Like that will stop a teenager who wants to see what's behind the curtains...
These stories are examples of why parents must step up, take responsibility, and fend for their kids. In the case of Ms. Lester and the Pickler case, the parents nearly lost their daughter into a situation that would be problematic to say the least.
They are very lucky people.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
First, a couple definitions...
STOOPID (n) - An act that is so dumb or ignorant as to go beyond even the boundaries of the definiaiton of normal stupidity.
STOOPIDITY (n) - An action currently being engaged in that would be considered STOOPID.
Alrighty.
The topic mentioned in the title has come up because of at least four stories in the news recently.
The first is the case of the Duke "rape" case, and I put "rape" in quotes because we have a victim who was seen at another party before she attended the one she was "raped" at, another woman who was with her called the rape allegations "a crock", and the DNA samples from the victim did not match up to the three people arrested. This to me is a defense lawyer's dream case.
The second story is the murder of Tiffany Souers, a student at Clemson University. Ms. Souers was killed by a sexual predator who described himself as " a monster". This man, Jerry Buck Inman, has spent time in jail in Florida for sexual assault, and he recently broke into another woman's house, and was about to rape and murder her. She apparently said that she told Inman about God, and how He would forgive Inman for his sins...or something like that. This worked, and Inman simply stole some money and left the scene. In the case of Ms. Souers, Inman strangled her to death with her bikini top, and now may face the death penalty for his vicious crimes.
Next, we have the story of a teenage woman who made the high-school honor roll, ending up in Jordan. We'll exerpt from Fox News for the details on this case:
A 16-year-old honor student from Michigan tricked her parents into getting her a passport and then flew off to the Mideast to be with a West Bank man she met on MySpace.com, authorities say.
U.S. officials in Jordan persuaded her to turn around and go home before she reached the West Bank. She was on her way home Friday.
Katherine R. Lester is a straight-A student and student council member, her father said. "She's a good girl. Never had a problem with her," Terry Lester said.
Katherine disappeared Monday after talking her family into getting her a passport by saying she was going to Canada with friends, sheriff's officials said. She apparently planned to visit a man whose MySpace account describes him as a 25-year-old from Jericho, Undersheriff James Jashinske said.
And finally, we have the story of 15-year old Jason Pickler, who met a 10-year old Michigan girl online. The two had an online friendship for the next 1 1/2 years, until Mr. Pickler, now 17, and the unidentified girl, now 12, decided that they were in love.
According to the story in the Casper Star-Tribune of June 10, 2006, Pickler confided in his parents, who apparently agreed to attempt to gain custody of the girl should Pickler himself not be able to do so. Pickler then went out to Michigan, met with the girl, who gathered her things, and came back to Wyoming with Pickler. Pickler has been charged with kidnapping and custodial interference, and faces up to 25 years in jail.
I tell you these stories because we have in each of them a case of either a perverted boy or man, and/or a girl or woman who makes some rather questionalbe..OH Ok, STOOPID decisions.
And stoopidity is not limited to these cases. Remember the case last year of the "runaway bride"? Well news update, the wedding's been called off again...this time, the husband has left...probably the best thing he could do for his sanity.
I guess my point here is that just when I think we've reached the bottom of the barrel as far as male sexual predators go...just when I think that THIS TIME they've caught the scum of the earth, another case is revealed that makes me shake my head and ask WHAT? in a sort of tone that sounds like I can't believe anyone would be that STOOPID.
And on the other side, after EONS of women fighting for their rights, fending off sexual predators, through the advent of self-defense courses, pepper spray, and just sheer knowledge, you would think that girls and women would get the point. Yet some of the women in these cases clearly were on the STOOPID pill or something.
These cases show why parents must do more to protect their children, both boys and girls from those who would do serious harm to them. Even after they are out on their own, parents should be there to relate to their children as responsible adults and be ready and watchful for trouble.
I don't want to scare anyone, but the stories I have highlighted show that there is trouble out there in the hinterland, and sometimes even adults, or "responsible" children don't have the intelligence not to get themselves into seriously dangerous situations.
And I hope that these stories put to rest the notion that the Internet is simply the children's playground. Places like MySpace and Yahoo chat are nice when used responsibly, but as the Lester story proves, these places can be extremely dangerous, as people hide themselves behind the Anonymous monicker, or use fake identities.
And if you think children are not visiting adult websites, think again. Most adult sites simply ask if you are 18 or older before letting you in, and the websites are not babysitters...they rely on your honesty to click NO if you are under-age. Like that will stop a teenager who wants to see what's behind the curtains...
These stories are examples of why parents must step up, take responsibility, and fend for their kids. In the case of Ms. Lester and the Pickler case, the parents nearly lost their daughter into a situation that would be problematic to say the least.
They are very lucky people.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Secure Our Borders Before the Next Person Dies!
^.^
The following was picked up from the Laredo Morning Times,which printed the story on March 5, 2006...
"A fatal pre-dawn shooting in Nuevo Laredo took the life of a young woman and injured two others Saturday near International Bridge I, officials said. The shooting occurred just days after the young woman was wed.
Not even a week before 17-year-old Nataly Berlanga Barraza was shot and killed in a spray of gunfire in the Sister City, she became the legal wife of 20-year-old Marco Polo Arredondo, sources said.
Barraza, who was the passenger in a metallic-blue Cadillac Escalade with Texas license plates, received a single gunshot wound to the chest. She was killed instantly in the attack.
Two friends, identified as 19-year-old Roberto Moreno Cardenas and 18-year-old Jose Carlos Ruiz, accompanied Barraza. Though Cardenas and Ruiz were also hit by gunfire and seriously injured, both survived the attack.
The motive for the attack is still unknown.
According to Associated Press reports, Barraza, Cardenas and Ruiz are from Laredo. However, as of Saturday evening the victims' nationalities could not be confirmed.
The incident marks the 35th killing of the year in Nuevo Laredo."
(excerpted from the Internet version of the story, written by Celina Alvarado)
Alrighty folks, the immigration problem on the border has GOT TO BE STOPPED. The situation from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas has gotten out of control. It's gotten to the point that not a day goes by where you don't hear some sort of incident involving illegal aliens or criminal mobs fromMexico crossing illegally across the border, threatening people living along the border, tresspassing on private property, or in some way making themselves a ganeral nuisance.
Some examples, other than the shooting death of Nataly Berlanga...
A tunnel was found that led from a warehouse in Mexico to a warehouse behind a diner in San Diego. The tunnel was large enough to stand in, it had electicity,and police found a huge amount of marijuana stored in the tunnel.
Along a desolate stretch of the Texas border, authorities are having to deal with convoys of drug dealers who try to cross the Rio Grande River. The police have attempted to intercept these criminals, who sometimes get stuck in the river. What generally happens is that the criminals call in support from the local military, who come in with SUVs, take the drugs off the stranded vehicle while holding the US police off with machine guns, they then drive away, after setting fire to the stranded vehicle. The US police have stated that they will not stand for this again.
People living along the border have said that they are afraid to come out of their homes after dusk for fear of being shot at, or otherwise acosted by illegal aliens, or the"coyotes", the criminals who the illegals pay to smuggle them across the border.
Governments are having to put out food and water at special way stations in the desert, so that illegals who cross in what is often-times very dangerous conditions or terrain can have something to eat and drink. This of course, keeps them alive...but their lives would not be in danger in the first place if they were not ILLEGAL ALIENS trying to cross our borders!
And as if the above were not bad enough, we have bleeding-hearts in this country who want to take the illegals in, bathe them, shelter them, and help them get access to the best health-care system in the world, along with our schools, employment opportunities, the welfare system, and everything else that goes along with living in America. It's no wonder that states such as California and Arizona are struggling under the weight of social systems that not only have to take care of the under-priviledged citizens of the state, but also the illegal aliens who show up and leech off the system.
And if you think Mexico is willing to help, THINK AGAIN! Not only are their federal agents assisting the drug smugglers along the Rio Grande, but if they turn the other way and give a blind eye to the situation, they get rid of a large number of people who would otherwise become an unemployment problem in Mexico. That plus the fact that illegal aliens in theUS often will send money home to their relatives still living in Mexico...money mind you, that they don't pay taxes on...and this money is pumped into the local economy. So to Mexico, the illegal alien problem in the United States is not a problem for them...it's community investment.
While talking to a friend of mine, whom I find to be a bit left of center politically, he brought up most of the same tired arguments for giving a shred of mercy and dignity to the illegals. When they get here, they need jobs or they will slip into a life of crime. Their children need education or they'll grow up illiterate. When someone gets hurt, the health-care system is obligated to assist. If the need is there, the social welfare system is almost obligated to help.
All of these arguments sound good, and in fact, they are tailored to pull at the heart-strings and make you feel all wishy-washy and sorry for the poor Mexicans who only came here to seek a better life for themselves, and they can't help it that they brought their mal-educated children, blah blah blah.
I would buy these arguments, and probably agree with them if it were not for the fact that THEY BROKE THE LAW THE FIRST STEP THEY TOOK ACROSS OUR BORDER!!! If a Mexican is here legally, if they were in Mexico, and they filled out the proper paperwork, if the paperwork was written in ink, as the Genesis song "Illegal Alien" says, and if they were accepted into this country, even as temporary workers, FINE! I can handle that, and they can and should have access to our society and the various systems that we use to keep it running.
But I am sorry, if the first act you do in this country is to break our laws, I have no sympathy for you. I want NO employment, NO welfare, NO education, NO desert way stations, NO assistance of any kind...why? BECAUSE ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE CRIMINALS! The sooner that the Mexicans realize this, the sooner they will look somewhere else to better their lives, whether that be improving the situation in Mexico, or applying to become either a guest-worker or a citizen of this country. The sooner our own people drop the bleeding-heart BS about the poor Mexicans who come across our borders because they want a better life, the quicker the majority of the resources that the illegals depend upon to live here will dry up, and the illegal aliens will find the "Land of Opportunity" a much harder place to live in...and perhaps they will stay home and try to make Mexico a better place to live.
My solution is simple...
First, tear up the way stations in the middle of the desert, and publish an article in every major newspaper on both sides of the border. The article should tell the Mexicans that if you are thinking about slipping across the border illegally...DON'T! If you do, there will be no assistance...no food, no water, no nothing, so you are risking your own life. And if you are picked up, no matter what your condition is, you get dumped back across the border into your own country. Do not pass GO, do not collect the golden ring.
Next, build a 15-foot wall (at least) from the Pacific Ocean to Brownsville, TX. At the spots where rivers must pass across the border, we should build watch stations to monitor the situation. Once again, if anyone is caught trying to climb the wall, or tunnel underneath it, they get dumped back into Mexico.
Next, issue a warning that anyone caught attempting to smuggle drugs into this country across the border can be shot...by anyone...maybe not to KILL, but possibly to maim. Once most of the drug smugglers in Mexico have lost an arm or leg, perhaps they'll get the message.
Next, the Minutemen and every single property owner along the border should be deputized as state police in whatever state they live or work in along the border. And again, they get the authority to detain any illegal alien they find, and if they find smuggling activity, these people should have the ability to shoot people in defense of their lives and property.
Employers harboring illegal aliens should be fined $250,000 for each individual. This will quickly dry up the small business market for illegal aliens, and most large companies won't like having to pay one million dollars just to keep four illegals. And by the way, if you're caught employing illegal aliens, the government should check back in six months to ensure that the situation has been corrected. If not, the fines get imposed AGAIN.
Hospitals who treat illegal aliens should report such activity to the Immigration & Naturalization Service, as well as the police. The illegals should then be deported. The same should happen when illegals try to access the education or welfare systems.
Put the national guard on the border. In some cases, the border forms the southern boundary to things like military bases and weapons test ranges, so doing so will actually increase the safety to the people trying to slip into the country.
Finally, all of the above items should be codified into FEDERAL LAW. It's already illegal to slip across the border, therefore the enforcement of the laws should be at the highest level.
Not all of our moves should be "mean". I say offer economic incentives to Mexico to build infrastructure and other improvements. Not only will the projects themselves be a source of employment, but the improvements will make the life of the average person so much better.
Now, before people come at me and say that my ideas are radical or draconian or will result in undue hardship for the illegal aliens, I would ask you to go back and read the incidents I cited at the beginning of this blog. My ideas actually take steps to SOLVE THE PROBLEM of illegal aliens, and it might be that the money spent on them might be recovered through the savings from employment, education, health, and social programs that are no longer strained past the breaking point by the continuous influx of illegal aliens.
Big problems call for big solutions. I am planning on emailing this article to each of the governors of the states along the border, along with certain federal officials who have taken this issue up, and are fighting for border integrity along our southern border.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
The following was picked up from the Laredo Morning Times,which printed the story on March 5, 2006...
"A fatal pre-dawn shooting in Nuevo Laredo took the life of a young woman and injured two others Saturday near International Bridge I, officials said. The shooting occurred just days after the young woman was wed.
Not even a week before 17-year-old Nataly Berlanga Barraza was shot and killed in a spray of gunfire in the Sister City, she became the legal wife of 20-year-old Marco Polo Arredondo, sources said.
Barraza, who was the passenger in a metallic-blue Cadillac Escalade with Texas license plates, received a single gunshot wound to the chest. She was killed instantly in the attack.
Two friends, identified as 19-year-old Roberto Moreno Cardenas and 18-year-old Jose Carlos Ruiz, accompanied Barraza. Though Cardenas and Ruiz were also hit by gunfire and seriously injured, both survived the attack.
The motive for the attack is still unknown.
According to Associated Press reports, Barraza, Cardenas and Ruiz are from Laredo. However, as of Saturday evening the victims' nationalities could not be confirmed.
The incident marks the 35th killing of the year in Nuevo Laredo."
(excerpted from the Internet version of the story, written by Celina Alvarado)
Alrighty folks, the immigration problem on the border has GOT TO BE STOPPED. The situation from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas has gotten out of control. It's gotten to the point that not a day goes by where you don't hear some sort of incident involving illegal aliens or criminal mobs fromMexico crossing illegally across the border, threatening people living along the border, tresspassing on private property, or in some way making themselves a ganeral nuisance.
Some examples, other than the shooting death of Nataly Berlanga...
A tunnel was found that led from a warehouse in Mexico to a warehouse behind a diner in San Diego. The tunnel was large enough to stand in, it had electicity,and police found a huge amount of marijuana stored in the tunnel.
Along a desolate stretch of the Texas border, authorities are having to deal with convoys of drug dealers who try to cross the Rio Grande River. The police have attempted to intercept these criminals, who sometimes get stuck in the river. What generally happens is that the criminals call in support from the local military, who come in with SUVs, take the drugs off the stranded vehicle while holding the US police off with machine guns, they then drive away, after setting fire to the stranded vehicle. The US police have stated that they will not stand for this again.
People living along the border have said that they are afraid to come out of their homes after dusk for fear of being shot at, or otherwise acosted by illegal aliens, or the"coyotes", the criminals who the illegals pay to smuggle them across the border.
Governments are having to put out food and water at special way stations in the desert, so that illegals who cross in what is often-times very dangerous conditions or terrain can have something to eat and drink. This of course, keeps them alive...but their lives would not be in danger in the first place if they were not ILLEGAL ALIENS trying to cross our borders!
And as if the above were not bad enough, we have bleeding-hearts in this country who want to take the illegals in, bathe them, shelter them, and help them get access to the best health-care system in the world, along with our schools, employment opportunities, the welfare system, and everything else that goes along with living in America. It's no wonder that states such as California and Arizona are struggling under the weight of social systems that not only have to take care of the under-priviledged citizens of the state, but also the illegal aliens who show up and leech off the system.
And if you think Mexico is willing to help, THINK AGAIN! Not only are their federal agents assisting the drug smugglers along the Rio Grande, but if they turn the other way and give a blind eye to the situation, they get rid of a large number of people who would otherwise become an unemployment problem in Mexico. That plus the fact that illegal aliens in theUS often will send money home to their relatives still living in Mexico...money mind you, that they don't pay taxes on...and this money is pumped into the local economy. So to Mexico, the illegal alien problem in the United States is not a problem for them...it's community investment.
While talking to a friend of mine, whom I find to be a bit left of center politically, he brought up most of the same tired arguments for giving a shred of mercy and dignity to the illegals. When they get here, they need jobs or they will slip into a life of crime. Their children need education or they'll grow up illiterate. When someone gets hurt, the health-care system is obligated to assist. If the need is there, the social welfare system is almost obligated to help.
All of these arguments sound good, and in fact, they are tailored to pull at the heart-strings and make you feel all wishy-washy and sorry for the poor Mexicans who only came here to seek a better life for themselves, and they can't help it that they brought their mal-educated children, blah blah blah.
I would buy these arguments, and probably agree with them if it were not for the fact that THEY BROKE THE LAW THE FIRST STEP THEY TOOK ACROSS OUR BORDER!!! If a Mexican is here legally, if they were in Mexico, and they filled out the proper paperwork, if the paperwork was written in ink, as the Genesis song "Illegal Alien" says, and if they were accepted into this country, even as temporary workers, FINE! I can handle that, and they can and should have access to our society and the various systems that we use to keep it running.
But I am sorry, if the first act you do in this country is to break our laws, I have no sympathy for you. I want NO employment, NO welfare, NO education, NO desert way stations, NO assistance of any kind...why? BECAUSE ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE CRIMINALS! The sooner that the Mexicans realize this, the sooner they will look somewhere else to better their lives, whether that be improving the situation in Mexico, or applying to become either a guest-worker or a citizen of this country. The sooner our own people drop the bleeding-heart BS about the poor Mexicans who come across our borders because they want a better life, the quicker the majority of the resources that the illegals depend upon to live here will dry up, and the illegal aliens will find the "Land of Opportunity" a much harder place to live in...and perhaps they will stay home and try to make Mexico a better place to live.
My solution is simple...
First, tear up the way stations in the middle of the desert, and publish an article in every major newspaper on both sides of the border. The article should tell the Mexicans that if you are thinking about slipping across the border illegally...DON'T! If you do, there will be no assistance...no food, no water, no nothing, so you are risking your own life. And if you are picked up, no matter what your condition is, you get dumped back across the border into your own country. Do not pass GO, do not collect the golden ring.
Next, build a 15-foot wall (at least) from the Pacific Ocean to Brownsville, TX. At the spots where rivers must pass across the border, we should build watch stations to monitor the situation. Once again, if anyone is caught trying to climb the wall, or tunnel underneath it, they get dumped back into Mexico.
Next, issue a warning that anyone caught attempting to smuggle drugs into this country across the border can be shot...by anyone...maybe not to KILL, but possibly to maim. Once most of the drug smugglers in Mexico have lost an arm or leg, perhaps they'll get the message.
Next, the Minutemen and every single property owner along the border should be deputized as state police in whatever state they live or work in along the border. And again, they get the authority to detain any illegal alien they find, and if they find smuggling activity, these people should have the ability to shoot people in defense of their lives and property.
Employers harboring illegal aliens should be fined $250,000 for each individual. This will quickly dry up the small business market for illegal aliens, and most large companies won't like having to pay one million dollars just to keep four illegals. And by the way, if you're caught employing illegal aliens, the government should check back in six months to ensure that the situation has been corrected. If not, the fines get imposed AGAIN.
Hospitals who treat illegal aliens should report such activity to the Immigration & Naturalization Service, as well as the police. The illegals should then be deported. The same should happen when illegals try to access the education or welfare systems.
Put the national guard on the border. In some cases, the border forms the southern boundary to things like military bases and weapons test ranges, so doing so will actually increase the safety to the people trying to slip into the country.
Finally, all of the above items should be codified into FEDERAL LAW. It's already illegal to slip across the border, therefore the enforcement of the laws should be at the highest level.
Not all of our moves should be "mean". I say offer economic incentives to Mexico to build infrastructure and other improvements. Not only will the projects themselves be a source of employment, but the improvements will make the life of the average person so much better.
Now, before people come at me and say that my ideas are radical or draconian or will result in undue hardship for the illegal aliens, I would ask you to go back and read the incidents I cited at the beginning of this blog. My ideas actually take steps to SOLVE THE PROBLEM of illegal aliens, and it might be that the money spent on them might be recovered through the savings from employment, education, health, and social programs that are no longer strained past the breaking point by the continuous influx of illegal aliens.
Big problems call for big solutions. I am planning on emailing this article to each of the governors of the states along the border, along with certain federal officials who have taken this issue up, and are fighting for border integrity along our southern border.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Protecting the Country, Part 1
^.^
I came across a liberal in an unexpected place last week. While I was getting ready to deliver papers, I tossed my garbage at the university police department and started up a conversation with the dispatch person. Now, I know you might be asking when does a police dispatcher have the time to chat about national politics, but this is a university police station on a week night, during summer...so no college kisd to deal with.
I expected to be able to have a good chat, agree with him, no matter how right-wing I decided to push it, and then go off and do my papers.
Instead, when I told the man hat *I* didn't feel threatened by the Patriot Act, because I have done nothing wrong, and I don't have anything to hide, he replied that what has become law under the Patriot Act is the start of a slippery slope, and the Germans in the 1930s said the same thing to the Jews...
Not expecting to find a liberal working at the police station, I was stymied for a response. Luckily, an incoming call came in, and he had to answer the phone, so off I went on my newspapeer routes...
But I also continued to think about what the dispatcher had said, and the following occured to me:
Osama bin Laden could give a rat's butt about the rights of Americans, whether we hold them sacred or trample them under our feet. Osama bin Laden could care less about the plight of the Iraqis, the fate of the royal family in his home of Saudi Arabia, or the plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza...this despite the fact that he talks about all of these alot, and undoubtedly these things make great grist for the Islamic fanatic rhetoric machine.
However, at the end of the day, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are all about establishing a radical Islamic state throughout the world, preferably without the United States in it. Now you ask "Why?" And the answer to that is because as the world's last superpower, the United States is a threat to the establishment of that radical Islamic state.
I reasoned that if Al Qaeda could have killed 3 million people on Sept. 11, 2001, they would have done so. Al Qaeda does not need a reason to want to kill Americans. The fact that someone is American is enough to seal their fate, as far as Al Qaeda is concerned.
It might be all well and good to sit here in the United States and talk about personal freedom and human rights, and moan about their loss. I have seen a lot of college students argue these points with their little college attitudes, with the sorta pious "we're college students, we're cosmopolitan, and we know what is right about the world and bad about America" style of talk. This is all well and good, but the thing about human rights and the personal freedoms we all share is that they are best when enjoyed while alive.
That's right folks, the dead don't give a damn about human rights and personal freedom. They're DEAD. And Al Qaeda wants to render Americans dead, no matter where they are. In my book, that means that personal and national security has to take a higher priority, and if that means a bit of inconvenience at the airport, if that means I need to be searched every so often, if that means that the government wants to know what I check out of a library, if that means that we have racial profiling on traffic stops, if that means that personal freedoms take a back seat for a while, by all means, DO IT!
Because in the end, the job of the government is to protect its citizens, so that they can enjoy the rights and freedoms that some of us feel strongly enough about that they hype up a conspiracy to explain why the government wants to take them away.
Myself, I have nothing to worry about. I've done nothing wrong, and I don't have anything to hide.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
I came across a liberal in an unexpected place last week. While I was getting ready to deliver papers, I tossed my garbage at the university police department and started up a conversation with the dispatch person. Now, I know you might be asking when does a police dispatcher have the time to chat about national politics, but this is a university police station on a week night, during summer...so no college kisd to deal with.
I expected to be able to have a good chat, agree with him, no matter how right-wing I decided to push it, and then go off and do my papers.
Instead, when I told the man hat *I* didn't feel threatened by the Patriot Act, because I have done nothing wrong, and I don't have anything to hide, he replied that what has become law under the Patriot Act is the start of a slippery slope, and the Germans in the 1930s said the same thing to the Jews...
Not expecting to find a liberal working at the police station, I was stymied for a response. Luckily, an incoming call came in, and he had to answer the phone, so off I went on my newspapeer routes...
But I also continued to think about what the dispatcher had said, and the following occured to me:
Osama bin Laden could give a rat's butt about the rights of Americans, whether we hold them sacred or trample them under our feet. Osama bin Laden could care less about the plight of the Iraqis, the fate of the royal family in his home of Saudi Arabia, or the plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza...this despite the fact that he talks about all of these alot, and undoubtedly these things make great grist for the Islamic fanatic rhetoric machine.
However, at the end of the day, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are all about establishing a radical Islamic state throughout the world, preferably without the United States in it. Now you ask "Why?" And the answer to that is because as the world's last superpower, the United States is a threat to the establishment of that radical Islamic state.
I reasoned that if Al Qaeda could have killed 3 million people on Sept. 11, 2001, they would have done so. Al Qaeda does not need a reason to want to kill Americans. The fact that someone is American is enough to seal their fate, as far as Al Qaeda is concerned.
It might be all well and good to sit here in the United States and talk about personal freedom and human rights, and moan about their loss. I have seen a lot of college students argue these points with their little college attitudes, with the sorta pious "we're college students, we're cosmopolitan, and we know what is right about the world and bad about America" style of talk. This is all well and good, but the thing about human rights and the personal freedoms we all share is that they are best when enjoyed while alive.
That's right folks, the dead don't give a damn about human rights and personal freedom. They're DEAD. And Al Qaeda wants to render Americans dead, no matter where they are. In my book, that means that personal and national security has to take a higher priority, and if that means a bit of inconvenience at the airport, if that means I need to be searched every so often, if that means that the government wants to know what I check out of a library, if that means that we have racial profiling on traffic stops, if that means that personal freedoms take a back seat for a while, by all means, DO IT!
Because in the end, the job of the government is to protect its citizens, so that they can enjoy the rights and freedoms that some of us feel strongly enough about that they hype up a conspiracy to explain why the government wants to take them away.
Myself, I have nothing to worry about. I've done nothing wrong, and I don't have anything to hide.
---
John B.
Blogger Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)