(Short post tonight, I’m about to fly out to DC for CPAC. I’ll report back if I see any drones on the way.)
New York City just won a minor victory against the Nanny State when a judge overturned Mayor Bloomberg’s ridiculous attempt to ban sugary beverages over 16oz. in the city that never sleeps, but those civil liberties are still a precious commodity…there and everywhere else.
One, possibly two, drones have been spotted in airspace over New York City. The first was drone was spotted on March 5th and nearly caused a head-on collision between itself and a commercial jet that was coming in for a landing at JFK International.
A second drone was, reportedly, spotted over the city on March 11th. Though this one did not scare the ever-livin’ crap out of an airplane pilot, but it was spotted only about 5 miles from LaGuardia. Not exactly a safe place for an unannounced drone to be flying.
So these drones are flying around the skies of one of our countries biggest cities and I think we’d all like to know what they are doing there?
Are these the drones that the Department of Homeland Security has equipped with technology that CNET has reported will be:
“capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
Or are they just the typical, hellfire missile equipped drones that they use overseas? Either way I’m not liking this much. Even if they aren’t going to fire a bomb and ruin my “cafe experience” as Rand Paul said recently, they are still violating my 4th amendment rights by allowing drones to intercept communications from radios and phones without a warrant and allowing the government to find my location through use of those drones.
Who has given them permission to do this? Well you get what you vote for and this is the Obama administration at work.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Romney.
During the election Romney took a lot of flack for his predictions on everything from outsourcing to China to Al Qaeda remaining extremely active and seriously dangerous to America and her interests, despite Obama personally killing Osama bin Laden…or so Obama would have had you believe, with the number of times that he referenced the fact that he killed/got bin Laden.
Well Romney lost. It was a dark day for the country. He lost because Republicans didn’t come out in full force, as they should have. Also because conservatives underestimated the stupidity of the liberal voting base.
And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but a rather large amount of voter fraud. Yes, I’m aware that my liberal readers will laugh at this and call me crazy, but it’s true. If you really think that counties having 104% or 140% voter turnout or 90% turnout with 99% votes for Obama isn’t suspicious and evidence of fraud, then kindly turn around and leave this blog behind.
I don’t have time for idiots.
Sorry, I got off topic. Where was I?
Romney was right, you were wrong, and now we all have to suffer for it.
Of course watching this administration try to deal with this string of foreign and domestic policy clusterfucks is going to be amusing as hell.
Let’s start here at home shall we.
During the election Mitt Romney speculated that Jeep would be moving manufacturing to China. Politifact made Romney’s Chrysler China ad their “Lie of the year.”
What’s happening now?
Fiat and Chrysler Group have reached an agreement to expand passenger car manufacturing and sales in China, officials said Tuesday.
Under the agreement, Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. Ltd. will build one Jeep model in China for Chrysler for sale in China. A specific model was not announced.
So they are putting manufacturing in China now. Yes, this does detract from job growth here in the states.
Politifact might want to apologize to Mitt, though I doubt he cares. We know they won’t though.
Foreign policy now.
Mali, which Romney, during the 3rd debate with Obama, mentioned with this statement “Our hearts and — and minds go out to them. Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by Al Qaeda type individuals.“
Turns out he wasn’t so crazy after all. First of all, he made that statement based on intelligence briefings from the administration that re routinely given to Presidential nominees, according to Buzzfeed, who also reports that the situation has escalated.
Northern Mali has been under the increasing control of three hardline Islamist groups since the spring and summer of 2012, but the situation became front page news worldwide when French troops entered Mali over the weekend at the behest of the Malian president.
President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.
This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack.
- CNS News (November 1st, 2012)
Benghazi isn’t the only place where Al Qaeda proved that they weren’t exactly “decimated” as Obama had suggested.
CNN Fact Check characterized Romney’s position in the 2nd debate as:
This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America, long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism.
And what do we have happening this very week?
In a raid that the Washington Post says in retaliation to the French intervention in Mali (oh look,there’s that country again) Al Qaeda linked forces took over a BP oil field in Algeria.
The Islamists claimed to be holding 41 foreigners hostage, with reports suggesting that another 150 Algerian workers had been prevented from leaving the plant, which is about 60 miles from the Libyan border.
The fighters were believed to belong to the Katibah Moulathamine, or the Masked Brigade, run by Mokhtar Belmokthar, a one-eyed Algerian terrorist leader, linked to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
A spokesman for the group warned the hostages would meet a “tragic end” if any attempt was made to free them. One of the captives told a French newspaper by telephone that the terrorists had “mined the base” to deter a rescue mission.
Oh yeah, that sounds like the leadership has been decimated and Al Qaeda is no longer a threat to America.
As I write this it appears that Algeria has taken care of the problem on their own. Good news for the hostages, American and otherwise, since our current administration doesn’t have a great history with situations like this. According to Reuters, 30 hostages, none of them American, died in the attack. 11 of the Al Qaeda militants died.
“We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.”
- Mitt Romney (via Bloomberg)
Obama, on the other hand, congratulated Morsi on his election and said nothing as Mubarak, former President of Egypt and an ally of America, was ousted in a search for a more modern, secular government.
HAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, writing that last sentence was difficult. I wrote about this on Dirty Sex and Politics last November.
I have to say that, similar to my feelings about residents of Gaza, I don’t feel that much sympathy for these people. They had other choices in the Presidential election and they chose to put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge. What, exactly, were they expecting?
Anyway, back to my point. Not only can Obama not be counted on to stick by American allies, but he has no ability to judge that someone like Morsi, who is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, is NOT going make a good ally for America.
The Muslim Brotherhood has had serious problems with the United States from the very start. Obama can’t see the writing on the wall there either. You didn’t need a crystal ball to see that it was inevitable for this new regime to start churning out headlines like this:
And just like Libya (not that their previous leader was better), we now have another Islamist country to deal with in the Middle East.
Great judge of character there Barack.
Romney called it again.
Romney isn’t the President, but he still has a better track record at predicting reality than the current administration.
God bless the USA, because if the last 4 years and situations like this are indicative of how foreign and domestic policy are going to go, we’re going to need it.
Now don’t you wish we had someone leading our country who wasn’t blind, deaf, and dumb to reality?
I hate to say I told you so, but…I did bloody tell you.
Donlyn Turnbull (creator) and Tim King (contributor and co-host) at DS&P Magazine, where I also contribute and article or two on occasion, invited me on to their radio show on FTR radio last week to talk politics, Ronald Reagan, roast beef sandwiches, and Rosie O’Donnell (ewww).
If you would like to listen to the show (my interview is the second segment, about 20 minutes long) here is a link to the DS&P website where it is posted. You can stream it or download it.
There was no triumph in his face, no elation, only the still intensity of contemplating the enormity of the smallness of the enemy who was destroying the world. He felt as if, after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation, past the ruins of great factories, the wrecks of powerful engines, the bodies of invincible men, he had come upon the despoiler, expecting to find a giant – and had found a rat eager to scurry for cover at the first sound of a human step. If this is what has beaten us, he thought, the guilt is ours.
- Rearden, Atlas Shrugged
I am confident that Romney is going to win this and in January we will be watching the Inauguration of President Mitt Romney.
I will be at the polls tomorrow and I will cast my vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the men can bring our country back from the downward spiral that President Obama has put us in.
This is the most important, most exciting, most exhausting, election that has happened in my lifetime and, god willing, it will be the most important one of my lifetime.
I’m not really sure I can deal with such a stressful election season again.
Just remember to
Well that’s apparently what liberals would like us to believe.
Anyone with a working brain is, I trust, automatically skeptical of such a claim…as you should be.
It’s not true.
I recently received a message on tumblr from a liberal who appeared to be very smug. They wrote “What if I told you” and linked to this article “Nightmare: 31 States Allow Paternal Rights for Rapists”.
Now the websites tagline is “Progressive: Politics to Pop Culture” so we can already tell this is A.) completely biased and B.) lacks any semblance of actual journalism already.
(Before you respond that I am also biased, remember that I don’t recommend you believe me with no further questioning…which is why I link to legitimate research and news so that you can start your own research.)
Okay, so this article is a hatchet job that provides no facts. Half of the links to ‘proof’ in their article lead to either articles on their own website (which also have no real facts to back them up) and the rest of the links (3 others) have to do DIRECTLY with a case that they cite where the mother won her court case, even though the rapist DID petition for parental rights.
The article (and none of the links) even tries to give us a percentage of woman who are A.) petitioned for parental rights by their rapists or B.) A percentage of rapists who are actually granted these rights.
My thoughts on that are of course that this is because the B part of that equation would be about 0% since the idea that any reasonably sane judge would grant custody or visitation rights to a felon and a registered sex offender (of which a rapist would be both) is absolutely ludicrous.
The article is actually so very bad that I’m going to have to take most of it apart piece by piece, which is something I think my readers enjoy.
In the midst of all the outrage over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments, Missouri resident Shauna Prewitt waded into the war zone. The victim of a brutal rape, Prewitt later gave birth to a daughter borne of that encounter. When her rapist later filed for custody of her child, Prewitt’s nightmare became frighteningly worse. This courageous woman shared her experience with the rest of America; she is not alone:
“Prewitt says that if she knew then what she knows now about the laws in 31 states thatgrant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy, she might not have chosen to keep her child.
“My attacker sought custody of my daughter, but thankfully I got lucky and his visitation rights were terminated,” Prewitt says. “But I’m not sure I would have made the decision I did had I known I might be tethered to my rapist for the rest of my life.””
Okay, so you are saying that a convicted rapist petitioned for parental rights and were denied…that’s not ‘luck’ that’s just common sense on the judge’s part.
This section is curiously lacking in any sort of statistic on how many women this happens to and how often the rapist succeeds…that just might be pertinent.
What does this have to do with Todd Akin’s comments? The idea that there can be “legitimate rape” because the woman was not impregnated during that vile act, and conversely, the notion of “false rape” when it results in pregnancy, is mind-blowingly frightening.
I must be missing something, but when did Akin claim that a pregnancy resulting from rape made it a ‘false rape’?
Regardless, most Conservatives saw Akin’s comments for the stupidity they were (he’s far better than his opponent regardless) so attempting to pin his comments on conservatives in general is just ridiculous.
For a victim to be forced to bear the child of the man who sexually assaulted her, and in many cases also drugged, abducted, terrorized, battered, disfigured, pummeled, shot, or stabbed her is unimaginable. While the sponsors of HR-3 will insist that such a victim was never raped, since alas, there is a pregnancy; these legislators also tell the perpetrator that he, by default, cannot be considered a rapist. In such a world, Ms. Prewitt would have had no grounds upon which to terminate the visitation of the rapist bastard who fathered her child.
Okay…so Akin was in on creating HR-3. However if you actually read the bill, like I actually did, you will find that it has no restrictions on women being raped having an abortion.
Nor does it change the definition of rape or say that women who get pregnant ‘weren’t really raped’ because they got pregnant. Now you just reaching the territory of stupid. Nor have the legislators in question tried to say that ‘if you get pregnant, then your rapists isn’t actually a rapist’.
So, yeah…she would still have grounds, except in the fantasy world you are constructing which has nothing to do with reality.
It’s nice how you never link to the text of the actual bill you are badmouthing, you just make up what you think is in the bill and feed it to your readers. Fact checking might help you.
What are we to take away from Prewitt’s experience? Consider that 31 states have not yet adopted special laws that restrict the ability of rapists to assert their custodian and visitation rights to a child born through rape. These 31 states effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy.
Okay, so maybe we should have a law that says ‘no felon or sex offender may petition for custodial rights of children’, but the states you are criticizing to NOT ‘effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights.’
What the state laws allow is for them to petition the court for those rights.
Remember earlier when I said that the idea that judge would grant such a person custodial rights was ludicrous?
Remember when you never gave us any statistics on how often this is attempted or how often it succeeds?
HR-3’s “legitimate rape” and “forcible rape” language would nullify the laws of the other 19 states for all of the reasons given above.
HR-3 uses no such language. Did you even read the bill?
After all, HR-3 says no such father could be a rapist – and fathers have rights.
HR-3 says no such thing. Did you even read the bill?
Data shows that roughly 27% of all American women faced with Shauna Prewitt’s circumstances make the decision to have and raise the baby; roughly 47% give birth but put the baby up for adoption.
Ooh! This looks like a buildup to some actual statistics on how many rapists petition and succeed in petitioning for custodial rights!
In the world of HR-3, the 26% who opt to have an abortion would be criminalized.
Whoops….no, just more fantasy world.
In point of fact, HR-3 actually say:
‘Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws
‘Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.
which means, for those with less reading comprehension, that this bill does not change the law on abortion at all. All it does is say that federal money cannot be used for abortions, except in the case of:
‘Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother
‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–
‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
So actually…this law doesn’t change anything for women who have been raped or have lives that are being endangered by the pregnancy.
To escape an imminent jail term, women would be forced to have their rapist’s baby
No, just stop.
and face the likelihood of being tethered to him for life.
Really, stop. Your fantasy world is not amusing anymore. You really need to live in reality.
Likewise, any rapist-father, now legally classified as non-rapist under Akin/Ryan law, could withhold consent to adoption as the unwed biological father and insinuate himself into the lives of mother and child.
No, they are still considered rapists. HR-3 has nothing to do with the definition of rape or defining what constitutes a rapist, a felon, or a sex offender is.
As previously stated, the rapist could attempt any of these things, but a judge would throw out the requests nearly as fast as they were made, HR-3 has NOTHING to do with this.
Consider the psychological aspects of rape: it is about domination, humiliation, control, and brutal degradation. For such a man to have controlling interests in the life of a child spawned by his brutality is heinous and reprehensible.
Oh look, we agree on something. This may be the only truthful thing you’ve said in this entire piece of crap.
Still has nothing to do with HR-3.
Legislation that would open the doors of victimized women to their attackers and give them free reign to manipulate, control, and to exert psychological torture indefinitely is downright barbaric.
Yes, yes it is.
Good job, you managed two correct (if obvious) statements in this article.
Still had nothing to do with HR-3.
Consideration should also be given to children fathered through acts of incest, and pedophilia; these two are often interrelated. In such instances, the Akin/Ryan law could grant indisputable custody to men who already have a sexual predilection for children, and would place the children of the children they raped squarely under their control.
No, no it wouldn’t.
HR-3 says NOTHING about protecting rapists or pedophiles.
In fact, it protects federal funding for abortions in one two cases at all.
‘(A) an abortion–
‘(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest, or
‘(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.
Great job at trying to poison the well though. I’m sure most of your liberal readers won’t bother to research this bill and will run around claiming that they have and that it protects rapists and bans abortions, but we both know that’s not true.
I received this question on tumblr yesterday.
And I realized, much to my dismay, that people really don’t understand this process. Here is my answer and I wanted to share it here as well, in the hopes that more people will understand this process.
And hopefully understand why this argument that “You shouldn’t vote for Romney or he will outright ban gay marriage, abortion, and birth control” is completely false, not just because he believes in state’s rights, but because that simply isn’t within his power.
Banning any of those things would be unconstitutional.
Now you may bring up DOMA here, but DOMA, while there is an argument about whether it is constitutional or not, was not a ban. DOMA basically meant that divorces and marriages did not have to be recognized across state lines, if a same-sex married couple moved from a state where their marriage was recognized to a state that did not have same-sex marriage.
So to ban something like that would take a constitutional amendment so that it wouldn’t be a unconstitutional. You following so far?
An amendment on one of those things would never happen. Here is why.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
The amendment on those topics would never be proposed by 2/3s of the House and Senate or by 2/3s of the states.
And even if one was proposed, it wouldn’t be passed because:
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Do you really think 38 states would agree to such an amendment? Not likely.
While I was celebrating my 22nd birthday last night, The Blaze was interviewing Julia Rodriguez, a delegate at the Democratic National Convention.
Looks like we found that Julia character that Obama is helping so very much.*
By the way, the secret service is investigating her for saying that she would kill Governor Romney if she ever saw him in person.
“Romney will destroy this country completely” she repeated angrily. Then, Rodriguez grabbed the microphone and emotionally screamed “If I see him” referring to Romney “I would like to kill him!”
Charming lady, I can see why Obama is so desperate to please her. He might just be scared for his life.
And as a last comment about women at the DNC, here’s my parting thought about Sandra Fluke and her dumb-ass speech.
Liberals want to say Conservatives think Sandra Fluck is a whore. No conservative thinks that. After all, whores earn their money.
*I’m aware that this is not the actual woman in the video. That Julia, like Obama’s girlfriend, was just an amalgamation of all the traits of the women who want to rely on the government to be their sugar daddy, but this coincidence was too delicious to pass up.
I mean, there are plenty of reasons to hate it. Members of our legislature can propose some nutty things (of course they rarely pass), our state university is a joke (then again, so are most state universities to my knowledge), and the heat is deplorable…unless you live in Flagstaff (liberal central), Prescott (surprisingly not as much of a liberal central, despite being an art community) or any of the other tiny little northern towns (I’m a big fan of Jerome, which is a tiny tourist trap with awesome ‘haunted’ hotels and beautiful old architecture…but also very liberal). And I live in a town that was founded by people crazy enough to put our town in a valley surrounded by mountains so that we never get rain (I love rain.)
But Arizona does have it’s good point. I know that other people (not me*) love the mild winters. This state loves their second amendment rights (Tombstone anyone? I’ve been there, if you go don’t eat at the Crystal Palace Saloon, I was sick for a week…just sayin’.) The fact that you can drive 2 hours and change climates completely is awesome and the fact that I live in a city whose founders named their town after a bird that burns to death regularly (which I usually feel like I will do in the summer) and were crazy enough to put our town in a valley surrounded by mountains so that we never get any rain. Also we don’t have Daylight Savings Time.
Also, sometimes the people are freakin’ amazing.
See, I may live in Arizona, but I’ve always been far more worried about the national political scene and I spent very little time paying attention to the local political scene** and as a result I sometimes miss stuff.
So then I see something like this on tumblr and I wonder where I was when this happened.
Joseph M. Scherzer, M.D. told the Daily Caller that he ‘plans to stop practicing before 2014 when the bill’s full impact will be felt because he refuses to deal with the headache of increased government involvement in health care.’ Perhaps he neglected to mention as well longer waiting lines, fewer doctors (as he exemplifies), cut backs in Medicare reimbursement and a myriad of other issues that will destroy doctor morale. There is a caveat to Dr. Joseph M. Scherzer’s plan to throw in the towel and he said as much on a sign taped to the front door of his office. Unless Congress or the Courts Repeal the Bill:
People like this make me love my state. We have so many bold people here that refuse to be taken in by all the BS that politicians in DC (and even our own state) try to feed us. Scherzer has a blog, by the way.
83% of Doctors have considered quitting because of Obamacare, Scherzer isn’t alone in this.
Now we just need to win the Senate, keep the House, and eject Obama from the White House.
November, here we come.
*I love to bitch about the cold, but I actually love frigid weather…especially if I can stay indoors with a fire and only venture into the snow for an hour or so at a time, but I hate having to drive 2 hours to see snow in the winter. I also hate having to wait until December to wear sweaters and jackets…and forget about coats.
**Though I firmly hold that any fuck-ups in the city of Phoenix are not my fault. I didn’t vote for Stanton. I voted for Wes Gullet.
***I’d like to note that Left Coast Rebel did an interview with Obama’s second cousin, Dr. Milton R. Wolf, M.D., who is a huge nay-sayer of Obamacare.