Archive for July, 2008

27
Jul
08

Rigged Elections?

Sometimes I wonder …

I’m not making any claim here, nor do I necessarily believe elections in the US are fixed, but … many things do make me wonder.

On the Republican side … it’s hard to believe John McCain actually won the primaries to become the Republican candidate for 2008.  Why?  People who go out and vote in primaries are generally very politically motivated people.  Think about it … these are people who go out and vote merely to support a candidate, not to actually put someone in office.  In other words, these are not constitutional votes, but simply party votes.  This is THE BASE!

In comparison to the other Republican candidates who campaigned in the primaries, John McCain has absolutely zero to offer to the Republican base.  Nothing.  He doesn’t understand economics, wants to provide the federal government additional authority to combat the Myth of Man-made Global Warming, and authored a campaign finance law that does nothing more than limit free speech.

Am I really supposed to believe the Republican die-hards, the base who shows up to cast a vote in a mere primary, actually voted for a guy who’s policy ideas come directly out of the Democrat playbook?

The Democrat Party?  Well … they completely snubbed the votes of two entire states!

Florida and Michigan?  No votes for you! In other words, you voters don’t decide, we (the party officials) do!  The Democrat Party cares not for your votes, they only care about their “authority”.

And what about Obama?  This guy is so closely tied to criminal organizations he should be under federal investigation!  Not running for the office of President.

I live in Michigan, and despite the worst economy in the union, coupled with some of its highest taxes, Jennifer Granholm was somehow re-elected.  Now this is purely anecdotal, but I have yet to find one person who will admit to voting for her.  I never shy away from talking about politics, yet in all my travels, I can’t find one person who voted for Granholm?

If she won the majority, you’d think I could find at least one person willing to step forward.

The “Hip-hop” Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, has been involved in one scandal after another since the day he took office.  Detroit is a run-down city, in desperate need of repair and opportunity.  Am I suppose to believe people actually voted Kwame back into office for a second term, despite being caught red-handed stealing hundreds of millions from the city coffers?  Really?

Sure … people too often act like sheep … but vote for Kwame?  That would make them zombies!

Today, Kwame is facing serious charges ranging from perjury to conspiracy, and he was just arrested for assaulting an officer.  The Michigan constitution provides Jennifer Granholm the authority to remove him from office immediately.  Kwame is looking at serious jail time for the many crimes he has committed, but has Jenny done anything about it?  Nope.  Kwame continues on in his Kingship as the “Hip-hop” Mayor.

I don’t know if elections are actually fixed, but I have good reason to be suspicious.  At the very least, these few examples do show that politics is more like organized crime than it is anything else.  They tax you and I to the brink of bankruptcy, while they use that money to enjoy their lives of unlimited privilege.

Government is nothing more than a racketeering scheme.  In fact, I’d prefer doing business with Tony Soprano over any of the bozos listed above.  Tony may be screwing me over, but at least he’d be forthright about it.

These are my thoughts, not yours … the Classic Lib.

Advertisements
22
Jul
08

Big Brother: The Indecent Assault of a Child

Note: 08/31/2008 – The title of this post has been changed.  Unfortunately, my attempt to create a provocative headline resulted in many detestable websites (of the kind I wish not to associate with) linking to this post.  Hopefully, the new headline will still make it’s point without drawing their sickly interest.  I changed the permalink too.  Sorry to those of you who used this post for it’s correct purposes.

—–

In 2003, Savana Redding, a 13-year old eighth-grade honor student, was forced to strip for Arizona school officials looking for 2 over-the-counter ibuprofen pills.

When the Vice Principal pulled her out of class, Savana agreed to a search of her backpack.  When nothing was found, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson ordered a female secretary and the school nurse to strip search her without bothering to even contact her mother.

The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to “pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts,” and “pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area.” Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.

“I was embarrassed and scared,” Savana said in an affidavit, “but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry.” She called it “the most humiliating experience I have ever had.” Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said “he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything.”
Source: The School Crotch Inspector

Is this what “zero tolerence” is all about?  We all know the saying, but seem to forget that it’s message holds especially true when it comes to surrendering authority to the government.

Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it!

These school authorities clearly violated Savana and her constitutional rights, however, the courts first held that the school didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because officials have a legitimate interest in protecting students from prescription drugs.  Luckily, a federal appellate court ruled that the school officials did violate Savana’s constitutional rights.

“A reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to ‘protect’ her from the danger of Advil,” the court wrote in today’s opinion. “We reject Safford’s effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term ‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.”

“It does not take a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity,” the court continued.
Source: ACLU

But it’s not over … the government and their “do-gooder” constituency aren’t going to give up, and they’ve got the Supreme Court in their back pocket!

In a 1985 decision upholding a high school principal’s perusal of a purse belonging to a freshman who was caught smoking in the girls’ room (a search that found marijuana as well as cigarettes), the Court said public school officials, as agents of the government, are bound by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. But given the importance of maintaining order at school, it said, officials do not need a warrant or probable cause to search a student; it’s enough that the search is “justified at its inception” and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference.”

In subsequent cases, the Court has indicated that a search can be deemed reasonable even when officials have no grounds to suspect a student has done anything wrong. In 1995 it upheld random drug testing of student athletes, and in 2002 it said that requirement could be extended to all students participating in extracurricular activities.

To justify compelling a student to urinate into a cup under a teacher’s supervision and surrender the sample for laboratory analysis, the Court not only did not require any evidence that the student was using drugs; it did not require any evidence of a drug problem at the school. The fear of potential drug problem was enough, in its view, since “the nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a pressing concern in every school.”
Source: Strip for the Principal

17
Jul
08

Jesse Jackson

jesse-jackson-n-word-for-me-but-not-for-theeGood ‘ole Jesse Jackson … the man who LOVES to tell people how to live, what to do … attack people and sometimes ruin their careers … is the very definition of “do as I say, not as I do.”  This “man of God” has lived a very scanalous life.  Off the top of my head, he’s:

– said Obama’s “telling n-word’s how to behave” and that he wants to “cut his nuts out.” (A former slave punishment.)

– claimed Obama was “acting white”.  (Whatever that means.)

– referred to Jewish people as “hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown”.

– cheated on his wife.

– fathered a child out of wedlock and secretly used the money of his “non-profit” Rainbow/Coalition to pay the mother $40,000 in “moving expenses”.

– money laundering, accounting scandals, Enron contributions, racketeering …

FOX should air the entire tape! It’s about time people get to know the real Jesse Jackson!

16
Jul
08

President Bush: “Big Oil!”

Let’s face it … it’s very hard to find a politician who understands anything today.  They’re driven by campaign fund raising, sound bytes, and vote pandering.  Some days … I think they’ll just say anything … but then on other days … I realize they just plain don’t know/understand what they’re talking about.Vintage_Oil_Cans_Service_Station_Lights

Well, I found a politician who does understand, at least some things.  His name is President George W. Bush.

The following is from the Q&A session that followed the President’s Press Conference on July 15, 2008 with a few of my own comments thrown in.  Any text highlighted was done by me.

Q Gas prices are now approaching $5 a gallon in some parts of the country. Offshore oil exploration is obviously a long-term approach. What is the short-term advice for Americans? What can you do now to help them?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, there is a psychology in the oil market that basically says, supplies are going to stay stagnant while demand rises. And that’s reflected somewhat in the price of crude oil. Gasoline prices are reflected — the amount of a gasoline price at the pump is reflected in the price of crude oil. And therefore, it seems like it makes sense to me to say to the world that we’re going to use new technologies to explore for oil and gas in the United States — offshore oil, ANWR, oil shale projects — to help change the psychology, to send a clear message that the supplies of oil will increase.

Secondly, obviously good conservation measures matter. I’ve been reading a lot about how the automobile companies are beginning to adjust — people — consumers are beginning to say, wait a minute, I don’t want a gas guzzler anymore, I want a smaller car. So the two need to go hand in hand. There is no immediate fix. This took us a while to get in this problem; there is no short-term solution. I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand — but the President doesn’t have a magic wand. You just can’t say, low gas. It took us a while to get here and we need to have a good strategy to get out of it.

theClassicLib: There has been a lot of hyperbole about “speculators” lately (see here), however, the President clearly understands the law of supply and demand.  He understands that even the idea of increased world oil supplies will reduce the price of futures contracts currently being bought.  This is no different than when shares of company XYZ decline on a rumored earnings warning some time off in the future.

Bush also points out that consumers, not government drive markets (aka supply and demand), and that nobody in government has a magic wand to make economic changes on demand.

Q But you do have the Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. What about opening that?

THE PRESIDENT: The Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve is for, you know, emergencies. But that doesn’t address the fundamental issue. And we need to address the fundamental issue, which I, frankly, have been talking about since I first became President — which is a combination of using technology to have alternative sources of energy, but at the same time finding oil and gas here at home. And now is the time to get it done. I heard somebody say, well, it’s going to take seven years. Well, if we’d have done it seven years ago we’d be having a different conversation today. I’m not suggesting it would have completely created — you know, changed the dynamics in the world, but it certainly would have been — we’d have been using more of our own oil and sending less money overseas.

theClassicLib: Right!  Everyone today is so focused on the immediate (which requires the use of that magic wand), that they can’t see the forest through the trees.  Now is the time to start drilling, so we don’t have the same (or worse) conditions a mere 7 years from now.

Q Mr. President, understanding what you say about energy supplies being tight and the debate over energy … one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?

THE PRESIDENT: They’re smart enough to figure out whether they’re going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it’s interesting what the price of gasoline has done, is it caused people to drive less. That’s why they want smaller cars, they want to conserve. But the consumer is plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works.

So no question about what you just said is right. One way to correct the imbalance is to save, is to conserve. And as you notice my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation. And people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance their own checkbooks.

theClassicLib: This Q&A addresses a fundamental difference between today’s Left and Right.  On the Left, they simply don’t believe people can and/or will make good choices in their lives without the explicit direction (and regulatory authority) of the Federal Government.  On the Right, there is trust in individuals to make wise choices for themselves and their families.

This is further illustrated in the following Q&A …

Q But you don’t see the need to ask — you don’t see the value of your calling for a campaign —

THE PRESIDENT: I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy. Absolutely. And there’s some easy steps people can take. You know, if they’re not in their home, they don’t keep their air-conditioning running. There’s a lot of things people can do.

But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it’s a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they’ll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That’s why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money. It’s a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money, or should they spend their own money? And I’ve got faith in the American people.

And as much as I regret that the gasoline prices are high — and they are — I also understand that people are going to make adjustments to meet their own needs. And I suspect you’ll see, in the whole, Americans using less gasoline. I bet that’s going to happen … And as you notice, the automobile industry is beginning to adjust here at home as consumer demand changes. And the great thing about our system, it is the consumer that drives our system; it’s the individual American and their collection that end up driving the economy.

theClassicLib: Yes, it’s a philosophical difference.  No additional comment needed.

Q `You never mention oil companies. Are you confident that American oil producers are tapping all of the sources they have out there, including offshore?

THE PRESIDENT: What about them — do I think they’re investing capital to find more reserves with the price at $140 a barrel? Absolutely. Take an offshore exploration company. First of all, it costs a lot of money to buy the lease, so they tie up capital. Secondly, it takes a lot of money to do the geophysics, to determine what the structure may or may not look like. That ties up capital. Then they put the rig out there. Now, first of all, in a federal offshore lease, if you’re not exploring within a set period of time, you lose your bonus; you lose the amount of money that you paid to get the lease in the first place.

And once you explore, your first exploratory, if you happen to find oil or gas, it is — you’ll find yourself in a position where a lot of capital is tied up. And it becomes in your interest, your economic interest, to continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of the project on a per-barrel basis. And so I — I think — I think they’re exploring. And hopefully a lot of people continue to explore so that the supply of oil worldwide increases relative to demand.

theClassicLib: Are oil companies investing in oil exploration?  LOL!  That’s what they do! That’s their business!  I’m sorry, but whoever the journalist is that asked this question, isn’t even bright enough to ask questions of the local class C softball team, let alone the President of the United States of America.

Yet … The Mainstream Media can’t figure out why their losing money and market share … um, uh … well … maybe it has a lot to do with insulting your customers intelligence with such ridiculous questions.

13
Jul
08

Barack Hussein Obama

Who is this guy?

We know he’s a young guy, just 45 years old with only 2 years of federal government experience.  We know he’s a prodigy of the Chicago Political Machine.  We know he supports socialist government programs and wants to increase the federal governments rule over our lives.  We know he says he’s all about CHANGE, but what does that mean?

Maybe he’s talking about what will be left in your pocket … after YOU‘re done PAYing taxes for all his new, expensive socialist programs … nothing but CHANGE.

Harvard boy Obama started his speedy political climb with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  Who is ACORN?  A large, but not well known activist organization that promotes a 1960s-style agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts.

ACORN grew out of the 1960s New Left group the National Welfare Rights Organization (NRWO). The aim of this group was to overburden the welfare system with so many clients that it would burst, resulting in a crisis that would force the end of America’s capitalist economy in favor of a more totalitarian socialist regime.

There is nothing mainstream about NRWO, ACORN or their agenda.

ACORN has taken a slightly different approach while maintaining the philosophy of NWRO.  Instead of attacking at the federal level, they’ve gone local.  They set up shop in the poorest communities where it’s easiest to garner votes and support with the smallest of handouts.  They engage in “in your face” confrontational tactics.  It will take an entire separate post to get into the sordid details.

Obama, with the help of ACORN and other radicals obtained huge government subsidies for private developers like Tony Rezko who was recently convicted on 16 counts of bribery, fraud, and extortion.

According to the Boston Globe, Obama’s Chicago housing projects provide a “Grim proving ground for Obama’s housing policy.

Grove Parc Plaza, one of the projects in which Obama directed large sums of taxpayer (that’s YOU) dollars, was seized by the federal government in 2006 after city inspectors found extensive problems.  Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser on his presidential campaign is CEO of Habitat Co., the company that managed Grove Parc Plaza.  Developer Allison Davis was involved in the creation of Grove Parc Plaza and used even more government subsidies to rehabilitate a North Side building cited by city inspectors as having chronic plumbing failures resulting in raw sewage spilling into the apartments.

Some renovation.

Davis was also a partner at Obama’s former law firm and a major fund-raiser in his US Senate campaign.  Six developers including Rezko, Jarrett, and Davis together have contributed more than $175,000 to Obama’s campaigns, and raised even hundreds of thousands more.  Rezko alone has raised over $200,000 for Obama.

The talking heads on television aren’t going to tell you about this stuff, they’re too busy tinkling down their legs.

So … who exactly is Barack Hussein Obama?

Just another dirty politician if you ask me.

09
Jul
08

Real Girls Eat Meat

I’m back … finally! I ran into a MAJOR computer malfunction 10 days ago, and I’m too stubborn to give up trying to cure it myself.  Well … I DID IT!!!

Jessica_SimpsonSince it’s been so long since my last post, I thought I’d come back with a “news” story about Jessica Simpson and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).  I know this has already been through the press and forgotten, but hey, it’s a great excuse to post a picture of Jessica! 🙂

PETA, who’s president Ingrid Newkirk claims “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”, now plans to target meat-eating celebrities.  At first, I think it’s funny that they target celebrities, but then my mood quickly saddens, as I realize how many people look to these celebrities as folk-heroes and believe in all the things they say.

From The Independent:

Ms Simpson was singled out for ridicule after she was spotted wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan “Real Girls Eat Meat”, believed to be a light-hearted dig at her boyfriend Tony Romo’s vegetarian ex-girlfriend, Carrie Underwood.

Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: “Jessica Simpson might have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn’t have a right to eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death. Some people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political correctness when they make a statement like this – what she is really doing is standing up for the status quo.”

PETA is an extremely radical organization.  As you can read in brief here, they have been involved in many extremely violent acts against humans, including burglaries, arson (burning down a 200-unit condominium complex), and firebombs (Michigan State University).  It’s my opinion that PETA simply hates people.  And while I’m playing armchair psychologist, it must then mean they really hate themselves.

Any group that has been involved with as much destruction of property, violence, and human death as PETA, should be investigated and squashed like any other terrorist organization.  Unfortunately, the PC Crowd has taken over, so any rational attempt to treat this organization for what they are – terrorists – turns into a baseless, emotional argument about cute, furry little animals.

Real_Girls_Eat_Meat

Peter Singer, professor of ethics at Princeton University and leading animal rights activist, has the following to say about humans and animals:

“Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans.”

“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him.”

“[T]he life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity. to feel, etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person.”

“Very often it’s not wrong to kill a child once it’s left the womb. Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.”

PETA simply HATES people! It’s that plain and simple.  And the not-so-funny thing is … they don’t much care for animals either.  As the San Francisco Chronicle points out in “Better Dead than Fed“:

DON’T BE FOOLED by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals … two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster.

The Center for Consumer Freedom … shows PETA has killed more than 10,000 animals from 1998 to 2003. “In 2003, PETA euthanized over 85 percent of the animals it took in … finding adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By comparison, the Norfolk (Va.) SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals and Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent.”

[PETA president Ingrid] Newkirk also told the New Yorker the world would be a better place without people. She explained why she had herself sterilized: “I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it’s nothing but vanity, human vanity.”

Now you know. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals doesn’t really like people. PETA has no use for ethics. And PETA kills animals.

Yes indeed … PETA KILLS ANIMALS!

Think again before you donate a few bucks to help the animals.  Make sure your money is going to a geniune cause, and not to an organization run by psychopaths like PETA.