Advertisements

Monthly Archives: July, 2013

We Need a National Conversation on Race…

unless you’re someone whom leftards don’t like. Then you just need to shut the fuck up, because you don’t have a “license” to “say anything.”

That’s according to racist twat Sherri Shepherd of the View, who apparently thinks that unless you’re a “young, black man,” your views on race don’t mean shit.

I don’t want to give Bill O’Reilly a license to say anything, because he’s never been a young black man growing up in the situations that a lot of them grow up in,” Sherri Shepherd told Lemon on Monday’s The View.

Yeah?

Hate to tell you this, you dumb bitch, but even the distasteful O’Reilly has a “license” to say something on race. It’s called the First Amendment, and he’s certainly got the right to speak on the issue.

But, of course, you don’t want his participation, because… well… he’ll say stuff you won’t like.

You know what you call a “conversation on race” where screeching, ignorant shrews try to shut up one side of the conversation?

It’s called a monologue.

You would do well to learn what that is.

Advertisements

This is a Good Thing!

It’s about time that the military recognized that service members come from all faiths (and non-faiths) – not just Judeo-Christian!  In 2007, the Bush Administration finally allowed the Wiccan pentagram – a five-pointed star inside a circle on the gravestones of Wiccan military members in Arlington Cemetery and other military burial grounds.

Last week, the VA approved Thor’s hammer as one of 56 emblems troops can request to have placed on their headstones.

While some only know of Thor as a comic book hero, he actually dates back to Norse mythology. Thor used his magical hammer to protect humans and other gods from giants.

But today, that hammer means something special to those who practice Ásatrú and worship the Norse Gods. And as NPR’s “The World” reported last week, those who identify as such and served in the military now have the option of marking their gravestone with Thor’s hammer.

I had an instructor at the Primary Leadership Development Course (Today it’s called WLC – Warrior Leader Course) back in 2005, who practiced Ásatrú. He was one of the best NCOs I have ever met! Not only was he incredibly bright, but he was also a killer on the land nav course, and could kick some serious ass!

We’ve come a long way from those days when people who put “Pagan” on their ID tags were regarded with a certain amount of disgust. I’ve seen it. A female in my basic training platoon requested “Pagan” on her ID tags and received an “Ummm… OK” sideways look.

During a readiness exercise right before my last deployment, one of the trainers proudly informed me that he was a Satanist, and showed me his ID tags. I think he was hoping to freak me out. It did not work.

Look, as far as I’m concerned, if you can shoot straight and I can rely on you to have my back, it doesn’t matter if you worship Jesus, Allah, Thor, Snoopy or the Great Pumpkin! I’m just glad those of different faiths are being recognized for their ultimate sacrifice.

Manning Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy

I guess we don’t consider Osama bin Ladin our enemy any longer, since we won the war on terror… or something. But apparently, the hundreds of thousands of reports that whining little shitbag Bradley “Call me Breanna” Manning released being found in bin Ladin’s compound doesn’t qualify as “aiding the enemy,” because a military judge acquitted that piece of crap of that charge.

A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of “aiding the enemy” for his release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. But she convicted him of multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property and other charges that could result in a maximum sentence of 136 years.

In delivering the mixed verdict, the judge, Col. Denise Lind, pulled back from the government’s effort to create a precedent that press freedom specialists had warned could have broad consequences for the future of investigative journalism about national security in the Internet era.

Never mind that the documents Manning released were found in Osama bin Ladin’s compound.

Never mind that thanks to Manning and his buddy Assmange, scores of innocent Afghans were threatened by the Taliban and several were kidnapped in retaliation for cooperating with coalition forces.

Never mind that this sniveling, simpering, blubbering douche canoe revealed a list of critical infrastructure – both America’s and our allies’ – to our enemies.

No…. he’s not guilty of aiding the enemy!

Just what is it that will make Manning guilty of aiding the enemy? Does it involve a tonguebath of Ahmadinejad’s taint? Does it involve a pair of knee pads and some chapstick as he slurps up every drop of Kim Jong Un’s tiny little schlong?

Just what is it that will make Manning’s arbitrary and intentional release of sensitive information that wound up in bin Ladin’s murderous paws be considered aiding the enemy?

This is not about investigative journalism. Nothing that Manning stole or Assmange released could be considered journalism. They released the names of sources, information about special forces, a list of critical infrastructure entrusted to us by our allies, descriptions of those who cooperated with coalition forces in Afghanistan and a bunch of personal communications between State Department employees that were no one’s business but theirs.

Manning didn’t do this out of any sense of honor. He did it, because he didn’t feel important and thought he’d show the Army just how important he could be. He did it because he was a little drug addicted asshole.

(1:39:03 PM) Manning: i cant believe what im confessing to you 😥
(1:40:20 PM) Manning: ive been so isolated so long… i just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life… but events kept forcing me to figure out ways to survive… smart enough to know whats going on, but helpless to do anything… no-one took any notice of me

[…]

(1:43:59 PM) Manning: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)

[…]

(02:40:26 PM) Manning: i mean, i was never noticed
(02:41:10 PM) Manning: regularly ignored… except when i had something essential… then it was back to “bring me coffee, then sweep the floor”
(02:42:24 PM) Manning: i never quite understood that
(02:42:44 PM) Manning: felt like i was an abused work horse…

He did it because he is a whining shitwad, who was apparently too good for the military, because they didn’t give him the respect to which he felt he was entitled.

Shove the self-important shitstick into a dank cell and let him stay there for a long time.

This is Where I get Politically Incorrect

I will say this publicly right now. I do not like the Americans with Disabilities Act. It’s not that I don’t respect Americans with disabilities, or that I want them to suffer in some horrible way. Not at all. I just don’t believe in the government legislating compassion and morality. And I disagree that opposing this law means I hate disabled people. Far from it. Requiring businesses to abide by certain standards (which may or may not help Americans with disabilities), developed by government bureaucrats who may or may not understand the needs of Americans with disabilities, does nothing but put an unfair burden on the businesses, which may or may not be able to afford compliance, and enriches the lawyers who just love taking these cases and sucking award money out of the victims as compensation.

Cato’s Walter Olson detailed some of the results in a 2010 article:

Thus in recent months a New Jersey jury ordered a rheumatologist to pay $400,000 for not providing a deaf patient with a sign language interpreter at his own expense; the Ninth Circuit ruled that the law may require movie theaters to provide captions and descriptions for blind or deaf viewers; a federal appeals court ruled that the nation’s paper currency unfairly discriminates against the disabled and must be redesigned (thus taking a different view from the National Federation of the Blind, which doesn’t think there’s a problem); a police dispatcher won a settlement in her lawsuit saying she was unfairly discriminated against because of her narcolepsy (tendency to fall asleep at inappropriate times); a large online tutoring service agreed to provide interpreters; miniature golf courses learned they will have to make 50 percent of their holes accessible to wheelchair users; and so forth. On Friday the Department of Justice announced that it would revisit the high-stakes question of whether and to what extent website operators must make their designs and services “accessible” to disabled computer users, perhaps in onerous and expensive ways.

In a more recent case – a report which prompted this blog post – a blind man with a service dog was told to leave a store. Michael Barnes has been completely blind since 2008, so he has to rely on his service dog to get around.

“Doc means a lot to me,” Barnes said. “Doc is not just a service animal. He’s my best friend, he’s my companion. When I’m out walking down the street, or when I’m walking through a store, Doc is my eyes. I tell him the direction, and he goes.”

That’s wonderful. These animals are beautiful, dedicated and very sweet. We have one at work, and he’s absolutely the BEST! Not only does he provide an invaluable service to his human, but he also makes the days a little brighter for the rest of us, when he allows us to pet him and play with him during his down times!

I understand the attachment. What I don’t like is that relationship fostering an attitude of entitlement that obligates and compels the rest of us to behave in a certain way.

Barnes said that he and a friend, Joseph Weaver, who are both blind and have service dogs, headed to a convenience store called Quick Pantry to get a snack on July 13th. It’s a store that Barnes said he’s brought Doc into many times before.

“The manager rudely comes up to us and starts yelling, ‘No dogs in here, no dogs near food,'” Barnes said. “We actually pulled out the Georgia guide dog law to show him that these are service dogs, and that we have a right to come in the store.”

Barnes and Weaver called police on the store clerk named Hiteshkumar Patel, but Patel still wouldn’t let the dogs into the store.

“All we want is the guy to allow us to come in, and to purchase our items. That’s all we wanted to do was go in, shop and leave,” Barnes said.

Now… I understand the ADA is the law. I may not approve of it, but I understand it’s the law of the land.

The manager was legally wrong, and the owner of the store told CBS Atlanta that he has since spoken with his employees and clarified the law to them.

CBS Atlanta went to Quick Pantry on Thursday and spoke with owner Pete Patel, who said that he has since clarified to employees that service dogs are allowed inside the store.

“On behalf of him and me, we didn’t know it was legal, that you can let them in,” Pete Patel said. “The last time, one time before they came in, that dog actually pissed in the aisle, that is the reason we said no.”

Patel has also clarified that the two are absolutely allowed in the store with their service dogs.  No problem, right?

Nope, apparently that’s just not enough for Barnes. He will continue to press charges.

“Being a blind individual is very difficult sometimes, and that is why we want to stand up for our rights as citizens of this wonderful country, and as Americans with disabilities, to show people that you cannot do this.” Barnes said. “This is something that you cannot do. If you’re going to run a business, you should abide by the law.”

So, the fact that his life is more difficult than many others, entitles him to come into an establishment with a service animal that is obviously not sufficiently trained not to soil the establishment’s floor, and have people clean up after him.

The fact that he is disabled entitles him to extra-special rights.

The fact that he is blind entitles him to continue pushing for the persecution of another American, who apparently quickly resolved the problem, educated his employees, and welcomes people with service dogs… because his life is hard.

The store owner already knows that “you cannot do this.” He has taken steps to rectify the issue, and will now abide by the law by allowing people with service animals into his establishment.

But, that’s not good enough, because Barnes wants retribution and he’s entitled to it.

And by God, he will use the Americans with Disabilities Act to make sure he gets his pound of flesh!

I have compassion for the blind and other disabled folks. If I were a business owner, I would absolutely allow service animals – with or without the Americans with Disabilities Act.

You know why?

Because I’m a decent human being, and because I don’t need forced compassion at the point of the government gun to do what’s right!

Yes, there are people out there who aren’t compassionate, who aren’t understanding and who don’t feel any compassion for others.

But is there really a law in this country banning insensitive jerkery?

Yeah, it’s called the ADA.

It doesn’t mandate that people be treated equally. It mandates that the disabled get special dispensations, and if they don’t, there’s a lawsuit in the making – even if the lack of special dispensation is unintentional on the part of a store owner or employer.

The unintended consequence?

Businesses that can’t afford the myriad of special accommodations will not open, and employers who are subject to lawsuits for perhaps firing an employee considered disabled under the ADA will likely just not hire the disabled, even if they eventually successfully ward off the lawsuit after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the lawyers to defend them from the suit. Why bother starting a business when you must first comply with expensive regulations, and then are subject to expensive lawsuits if some professional litigant looking for ADA violations happens to stumble on your inconveniently-placed doorknob?

Why bother opening a restaurant, if some slimy pig is going use the ADA to sue you for not accommodating his fat ass with larger seats?

And why bother ensuring that your enterprise is safe, when you’re just going to get sued under the ADA for refusing to hire former drunks?

…Exxon gave ship captain Joseph Hazelwood a job after he completed alcohol rehab. Hazelwood then drank too much and let the Exxon Valdez run aground in Alaska. Exxon was sued for allowing it to happen. So Exxon prohibited employees who have had a drug or drinking problem from holding safety-sensitive jobs. The result? You guessed it — employees with a history of alcohol abuse sued under the ADA, demanding their “right” to those jobs. The federal government (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supported the employees. Courts are still trying to sort it out.

Under the law, Barnes has the right to shop in a store with his service animal. He was prevented from doing so, and the problem was ostensibly rectified.

But Barnes will press charges anyway, and he will likely cost the store owner hundreds of thousands of dollars, and perhaps even force the closure of the store. Then no one will be able to shop there, including Barnes and his service dog, and several people will be out of a job and added to the unemployment rolls.

I guess Barnes doesn’t give a shit about this, as long as he gets his revenge!

Way to go, Mr. Barnes! If you think this will somehow gain you and other disabled people more sympathy, you’re sadly mistaken.

Dear Republicans

If you nominate this fetid fat fuck as your Presidential candidate for 2016, I WILL vote for a Democrat, even if that Democrat is Hillary Clinton!

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ripping libertarians – including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). – for challenging government surveillance programs and failing to understand the dangers of terrorism.

[…]

Christie, who appeared on the panel with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, said people who are questioning government surveillance programs should confront the families affected by the 9/11 attacks.

“These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have,” Christie said, warning that after the next terrorist attack Americans may point to “this intellectual debate.”

“The next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering whether they put…” Christie said before trailing off.

Not only is Christie a would-be, pathetic, authoritarian shitbag, he’s also using the typical tactic  of most fascist bags of fug, invoking the thousands dead in the September 11th attack to push surveillance programs which may not do a whole lot to prevent such an attack.

Let’s look at the now-declassified, famous Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) that warned the Bush administration about possible terrorist attacks.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US.

Clandestine, foreign government and media reports.

What is conspicuously missing from this PDB? SIGINT. Signals intelligence. That is what the NSA does. But the Intelligence Community got this warning pretty much dead on without SIGINT.

Intelligence and warnings are no good unless the leadership listens, and this particular PDB got it right, and nothing was done, unfortunately. Would this report have been ignored had NSA reporting been included in it? Would the administration have magically decided that the warning is now more trustworthy and viable because signals intelligence was included? I doubt it.

Hindsight is 20/20, so we can speculate all we want. But fact of the matter is SIGINT was not what made this warning piece correct. HUMINT reporting, press and information from our allies did.

And yet, Christie insists that somehow libertarians are “dangerous” for wanting to ensure our rights are protected?

Look, I know a lot of libertarians are pretty unrealistic when it comes to the NSA. The calls for dismantling the agency emanating from some are clueless and deluded. That said, there needs to be a balance between protecting the rights to privacy of American citizens and protecting us from terrorist threats. This is what Rand Paul and other liberty Republicans want to do. This is what many libertarians want to do (not referring to the party, but to the ideology of freedom and liberty and very limited government).

I know NSA is not the evil behemoth many libertarians want to believe it is, and de-funding the agency as a whole would be monumentally stupid, especially given the technological advances of our era in use by many adversaries.

Some legislators, including Rand Paul, want to require a warrant before allowing any government agency to search the phone records of Americans. This is what’s so horribly dangerous, according to Chris Christie? Is this so unreasonable?

An amendment recently passed in the House, championed by Mike Pompeo of Kansas, aims to protect the civil liberties of Americans.

…the amendment properly requires that no funds can be used by the NSA to collect or store the content of American citizens’ communications data. This includes phone calls and emails. The amendment; however, does not seem to restrict the NSA’s ability to continue collecting and storing massive amounts metadata.

An amendment proposed by Justin Amash would have prevented the NSA from using any funds at all to collect any data on persons that are not under investigation.

There are folks in Congress working to achieve that balance between national security and civil liberties.

From what I can see, Christie couldn’t possibly care less about the latter. He simply uses the “national security” mantra to push for statism in this country.

Not like we didn’t know this before, given his shoddy record on guns.

Not like we didn’t know this before, given his appointment of an anti-gun RINO as interim US Senator.

Not like we didn’t know this before, given his strident opposition to off-shore drilling anywhere near his own backyard.

Not like we didn’t know this before, given his entitled screeching about Washington’s failure to give his state taxpayer dollars after Hurricane Sandy, despite the fact that the bill was laden with pork.

You know who’s dangerous? Chris Christie.

And if Porky becomes the GOP’s presidential nominee, the Republican Party deserves yet another loss.

First there was McCain, who was a massive FAIL at challenging George W. Bush. Idiot Republicans decided that it was a good idea to stick the RINO Cryptkeeper at the top of their ticket – the guy who lost to Bush, whose popularity ratings at the time of the 2008 Elections were somewhere between athlete’s foot and herpes. This is the guy the GOP thought would defeat the Democrats? Right.

Then there was Romney. In its infinite wisdom, the Republican establishment chose as its heir apparent to the presidential nominee the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in the previous presidential election! Really, GOP?

There’s a reason I haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1992.

This trend will continue if Christie gets the nod. Except not only will I continue reject the GOP, I will actively work to defeat Christie, and will encourage everyone I know to vote Democrat that year!

%d bloggers like this: