Frankly Speaking

Obama is attempting to woo all those female supporter of Hillary Clinton by touting his record of supporting women's rights, including equal pay for women. Apparently he means equal pay for everyone but his employees.

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

"You know what? I respect women! I love women! I respect them so much that I completely stay away from them!"*

The hypocrisy is strong in this one. Just one more example of "Do as I say, not as I do" from the Obamessiah.

However, McCain, who Obama is trying to portray as the grumpy old guy who hates women, has a different standard for his staff.

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

You have got to love that. McCain employees nearly twice as many women as men, and pays them, on average, more than he pays the men.

What do you think the chances are of seeing that little fact pop up on any of the nightly news broadcasts on the big three?

Labels: inconvenient truth, obamessiah, presidential politics

I bought a new camcorder recently. Just a few minutes ago I was telling my girlfriend about it. I sent her a link to Amazon.com so she could see it, when she said this:

ohh.. it's got a zeiss lens

And I fell a little more in love with her right then. Because I'm dating a really, really hot girl that is also very smart. When I talk about history, politics, 802.11g networks or the Carl Zeiss lens on my new camera, she never gives me that blank stare that says, "I have no idea what you're saying, but you should buy me something."

In the words of that famous philosopher Rod Stewart, "Some guys have all the luck."

Labels: all about me

Just in case you wondered why men are more randy during the summer months, the Fox sexpert has it all figured out for you.

But what is it about the summer season that makes us so much more aroused?

There are a number of reasons summertime awakens one's libido. Males, in particular, respond greatly to external, visual triggers, like the sudden influx of women in bikinis, sundresses, mini-skirts and halter-tops.

I know that, like me, you are all shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you, to hear that men get aroused when they see beautiful, scantily clad women running around, but there it is in black and white. And it was on the internet, so it has to be true.

She also babbles on about something about sunlight and hormones and a few other things. I don't know, I wasn't paying attention after hearing women in bikinis. I started daydreaming and kind of forgot what I was doing.

And for any of you morons out there who don't have girlfriends, you can look at all the nekid women you want at Attu Girls. But remember, there is not a single thing on that site that is even remotely safe for work, so you've been warned.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to call my girlfriend and see what she's doing later. I have visions of her in a bikini.. but not for long.

Labels: pointless silliness

The Heller verdict is in, and SCOTUSblog is following it live. I'm reading the opinion right now, but the short version is that the court just shot D.C. the bird and said, "Hey, suck it beyotches."

From the opinion by Scalia

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I think that about settles that. I think I hear Sarah Brady silently weeping even as we discuss this.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Quick question for you here, chief. Exactly how is any firearm not dangerous? They are all designed with one purpose in mind, the ability to throw a piece of lead down the field accurately and at a very high rate of speed. Some are designed so that the user must manually prepare the firearm for each shot, some are semi-automatic, firing a single round for each pull of the trigger, and some are full-auto; you pull the trigger and it doesn't stop until it runs out of ammunition. The only difference in the weapons is the rate at which it throws lead, not the lethality. Dying from a single shot from a .22lr means you're just as dead as if someone pumped you full of 5.56mm on full auto.

So they leave the door open for the scary looking weapons ban to rear its ugly head yet again at some point in the future.

But the good news is that they have finally made a ruling that yes, the second amendment means that you, the individual, no matter what you're standing in a local militia, have the inalienable right to own and keep firearms in your home for self-defense.

It's turned into a good day.

Labels: gun control, inconvenient truth

Remember my post a few days ago about what a wonderful country we live in? Well, here is yet another examples.

Americans donated $306 billion last year, according to preliminary figures contained in the closely watched annual report from the nonprofit Giving USA Foundation. After adjusting for inflation, donations rose only 1 percent from the roughly $295 billion donated in 2006.

So, despite high gas prices and all the fact that, according to the Democratic party, the country is falling to pieces, Americans have once again given in record numbers. Giving didn't grow as much as it has in previous years, but it still increased.

Because no matter what the nightly news tries to tell you, Americans are essentially good, caring, giving people. Except for those right-wing, extremist, gun loving Jesus freaks. I'm sure they didn't give anything at all, being too busy clinging to their religion and their guns.

At least according to Obamessiah.

Hey, here's a thought for you to ponder. What if the government weren't busy trying to grab as much of your money as it could to redistribute among the masses. Do you think that if we had to rely on charities to help us instead of the nanny state that maybe charitable giving would increase and people would still be okay? You know, like how the world worked before the Great Society?

Labels: inconvenient truth, obamessiah, rise and fall of American culture, rob from the rich

via Red Planet Cartoons.

Labels: governmental idiocy, pointless silliness, presidential politics

As long as it's their approved speech.

As you know, this afternoon at 3pm Central time, we're scheduled to hold our Hot Air Tour event in Nashville, during which we hope to launch a hot-air balloon and float over Al Gore's house in an attempt to expose the high cost of global warming alarmism.

So, a group of people want to float a hot air balloon over Al Gore's home to point out the fact that he is, quite frankly, full of shit. They then followed the law and obtained all necessary permits, even naming the location where they planned to launch the balloon. As soon as Gore's people heard about it, they did everything they could to put an end to it. Can't have anyone calling attention to the goreacle's outrageous lifestyle while he's out trying to convert the masses now, can we?

Sure enough, just a few hours before our event was scheduled to kick off, the Nashville Parks and Recreation Department has been in touch, claiming that the permit they approved doesn't allow us to launch our balloon from the city park where we're holding our event -- even though we told them repeatedly exactly what we planned to do.

Roy Wilson, the director of the Board of Parks and Recreation, has even reportedly told one of our staffers on the ground that Nashville police officers will be on hand and will physically restrain members of our crew if they attempt to launch the balloon.

So there you have it. You want your fascist, police state? Just try to protest against a blowhard, hypocritical, liberal hero and they will send the cops to physically restrain you.

On the other hand, if you want all the police and government cooperation you want, protest the military in Berkley.

Fucking liberals. Why is it so hard for people to see who really wants to restrict their speech? If Bush had the police threaten to physically restrain the protesters outside his Crawford ranch, how long before that made international headlines? CNN and MSNBC would spontaneously combust with their combined rage, but let Al Fucking Gore threaten someone and you will never hear another word about it.

I have to go now. I'm so pissed off I can barely see straight.

h/t Sharp As A Marble

Labels: inconvenient truth, liberal hypocrisy, liberty, mediots

Perhaps you've been under a rock recently and didn't hear the following quote by Gore Vidal.

“The president behaved like a virtual criminal but we didn’t have the courage to sack him for fear of violating the American Constitution. We live in a dictatorship. We have a fascist government... which controls the media.”

It is idiots like Gore Vidal that make America look bad to the rest of the world, not conservatives. But I'll get back to that in a minute. First, let's talk a little about just what Vidal has to hate about America.

Maybe it's the fact that he can walk in to any supermarket in America on any day of the week and find more food than your average Ethiopian city.

Or maybe it's the fact that you are free to attend any worship service you want, of any religion you desire, at any time. Or not attend. The choice is yours, and it's guaranteed in our constitution.

If you wish to help defend this country, you are free to join any of the branches of service. If, on the other hand, you wish to live under the protection provided by the men and women who serve this nation, you don't have to serve. Because we are an all voluntary military, unlike most countries in the world.

If you decide that you don't agree with one of our elected officials, you are free to protest, write letters to the editor, or spout off your insanity to a news organization like old Gore Vidal did above. And here's the best part, jack booted thugs are not going to show up at your home and drag you off in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Try that in Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or Zimbabwe. Or one of a dozen other utopian's societies that are idolized by those on the left.

At then end of a hard day's work, you can go home to your brick home, equipped with a washer and dryer, dishwasher, central heat and air and park your car in your garage to protect it from the elements. You can flip on your cable or satellite and choose from hundreds of channels of news or entertainment while sipping an ice cold beverage waiting for your fresh, hot meal to be delivered. There are literally billions of people on this planet that would give everything they had to live in your garage, let alone enjoy the luxuries you take for granted every day.

If there is a natural disaster (flood, fire, earthquake, hurricane, you name it) in your area, people from all over the country will come to help. They will fill sandbags, and shovel mud or do whatever it takes to help you out. Not because someone is paying them to do it, but because they see a fellow American in jeopardy and they want to help. Just look at the recent flooding in Iowa. Or the thousands of people who have been to New Orleans to rebuild after Katrina.

For that matter, look at the billions of dollars that U.S. citizens have sent around the world to help others after natural disasters, like Burma, or following the tsunami in Indonesia. And that's not counting the money the U.S. government sends, I'm talking about private citizens voluntarily giving to aid organizations.

When election day comes around you can get up in the morning, make your way down to the polling place, vote for any candidate on the ballot, or even write in a candidate, and no one will haul you off to jail or shoot you in the street. The worst thing that will happen is you'll get to work later and get into a heated discussion with Bob from accounting, because he's a lifelong member of the other party and you disagree about the best way to reduce oil prices. Then you'll go back to your desk and go to work.

Speaking of which, maybe you should be upset that 94.5% of the country will get up and go to work today. Which is one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Japan's is slightly better, but I can't find anyone else with an unemployment rate close to it. Not even in Europe, which is held up as a model of everything we should be doing in this country.

If your home catches on fire, you can grab your home phone, your cell phone, your wife's cell phone, or any of your children's cell phones and call 911. Trained firemen and rescue workers will rush to your home to save your family and attempt to save your property. If you do lose everything, chances are that you have insurance that will pay you for your damages so you can get back on your feet in a minimal amount of time.

If someone attempts to break in to your home, you have the right to keep firearms in your home to defend yourself. You can also call 911 and tell them that someone is trying to rob you and they will send armed police to your home to defend you and catch the bad guy. Or if you had a firearm of your own, to pick up the body of the bad guy. And the good news is that you don't have to bribe the local police official to stay on his good side so that he'll come out to help you.

And this list is in no way all inclusive. These are but a fraction of the myriad of freedoms and opportunities you have merely by living in the United States. But Gore Vidal and idiots like him would have you believe that we live in a fascist state. That you should be in fear that at any moment George W. Bush's storm troopers will kick in your door, force you to convert to Christianity and haul you off to prison until you either agree to be a good conservative and support him, or they decide to execute you.

It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks ill of us, we can't even get our own media or politicians to speak well of America. The wife of the Democratic nominee called the U.S. a mean nation, Gore Vidal and his like call us fascists, and liberals in the media and in Hollywood spend more than 90% of their time talking about how awful this country is. If the only thing I knew about America came off of CNN, I wouldn't want to live here, either.

Maybe, just maybe, someone ought to spend a little time reminding everyone what a great nation this truly is.

Labels: mediots, rise and fall of American culture

Of pretty much every date that involves a teenage guy.



At least he had the decency to clean off the gibbon's hand when he was done using it.

Labels: pointless silliness

NBC's Tim Russert died today at age 58.

Go read the full story for the details. I disagreed with Tim on a lot of things, but he was one of very few old media guys I respected. He was always fair and even handed with his guests and you could tell he genuinely enjoyed what he did. Plus, he was a wiz with the white board on election night. That always cracked me up. But it made him seem more like a regular guy than if they had used a lot of slick graphics to demonstrate their point. I will definitely miss him on Meet The Press.

R.I.P. Tim. Condolences to his family. I'm sure they are going through a very bad time right now.





Tim in action with the white board.

Labels: general stuff

Barack Obama, the messiah and hope for the future, is apparently not capable of thinking things through ahead of time.

Charles Johnson at LGF found a few security holes on my.barackobama.com. After posting several of the holes he found, Obama is now advertising for an information security expert.

Obama for America is looking for a network security expert who wants to play a key role in a historic political campaign and help elect Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.
In this role, you will be responsible for:

* Analyzing the network architecture for the My.BarackObama website
* Leading an overhaul of existing security systems and architecture, including policy, firewall, VPN, and networking equipment
* Developing a strategy for responding to hack attempts, DDoS attacks, and other potential threats
* Establishing and managing the security posture of the online campaign My.BarackObama

My question: shouldn't they have thought about this, I don't know, before they started launching websites?

Information Technology is my field, specifically Information Security. There is absolutely no way I would have ever let their site go live the way it was. They have made some of the most amateurish, rookie mistakes you can make. Half of their directories were left wide open for the internet to browse. Who knows what else they've left. I would bet dollars to donuts that if you searched their servers you would find more than one piece of malware and probably a nice collection of pr0n that somebody has stashed there.

So, if Barack can't even plan enough to make sure he has adequate security for a simple campaign website, are you really ready to put him in charge of the free world? You think he'll plan a little more when negotiating with Achmanutjob than he has planned for protecting his donors from identity theft*?

Me, I'm not so sure.

*I'm not saying that anyone has lost their identity because of making donations on his site. However, if his campaign can't even secure a directory, what do you think the chances are that their SQL or MYSQL databases have adequate security? I'm guessing it's not much.

Labels: all about me, geek talk, obamessiah, presidential politics

Alberta's human rights commission has ruled against Rev. Stephen Boission in a case concerning hate speech. His crime was the fact that he included parts of the bible that call homosexuality as a sin and immoral.

Along the same lines, Mark Steyn is being pursued by the B.C. Humans Rights Tribunal for what he has written about Muslims.

My question. You think any of these bastions of free speech will go after a single Imam for their views on homosexuality, Jews, or Kafirs?

A law which does not apply to all equally is no law at all. Just as a freedom that does not apply to all equally is not truly a freedom.

Either everyone is allowed free speech, or no one is. Unless you're promoting the liberal value of "free speech", which means free speech for everyone, as long as you agree with me.

Labels: christianity, governmental idiocy, mediots, moonbats

Senators, in their infinite wisdom, are voting today about penalizing oil companies for making a profit. Or as they put it, taxing the hell out of the companies until they are left making a "reasonable" profit.

This is, in a word, asinine. This country is founded on freedom and capitalism. The freedom to do business and make a profit unfettered by a cumbersome central government. Before you get your panties in a wad, yes, I do believe in a certain amount of federal regulation, but that certain amount is much, much smaller than anything that these communists Senators are advocating.

Yesterday I was at my chiropractor's office when we began discussing oil prices. I, of course, advocating drilling domestically, building more refineries, building more nuclear reactors and finally pursuing alternative energy sources.

His response was to first spend what seemed like forever complaining about "excessive" oil profits, followed by his support for the windfall profit tax. Then came the bombshell.

"What we ought to do is what old Chavez has done. Tell them they've got 30 days to clean up their act and then we're going to nationalize the oil industry."

I stood there with my mouth hanging open, not believing that someone as seemingly well educated as this man is could advocate something like this.

I reminded him that we live in America, where you are not only free to start your own business, but should be encouraged to do so. And that once you have that business, you are free to make as much money as possible, enabling you to employ as many people as possible. I also pointed out that most everyone I know has money in 401ks or mutual funds that are invested in oil stock, which is making money for them for retirement.

I have another appointment with him tomorrow morning. When we're done, I'm going to push my point a little further. When it comes time to pay my bill, I'm going to point out that he has an office building with at least 5 rooms in it that aren't being used, he drives a German luxury car, and takes off two afternoons a week to go golfing. Obviously he is making too much profit, and as such I don't think I should have to pay as much as he's charging. I think $5 per visit is perfectly reasonable, and if he can't live on that, he should work all day, every day during the week. Because it's obvious that doing business the way that he is, he is making an obscene profit.

You think he'll get the point?

Labels: biting sarcasm, governmental idiocy, inconvenient truth, moonbats

If you've never run across it before, you really need to be reading Graph Jam. Maybe I'm just a little off, but I think it is one of the funniest sites ever. Seriously, go there now. It is freaking genius.

Two examples from their site below.

Labels: pointless silliness

Peter Schweizer has written an interesting article about liberals and conservatives and who is more honest. The conclusions, while contrary to the conventional wisdom you hear on the nightly news, is exactly what I expected.

The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. And notice, please, that I didn’t ask whether certain politicians are more honest than others. (Politicians are a different species altogether.) Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty.

I want to stress this point before we go any farther; this is not about individuals. We all know moral, honest liberals and we all know conservatives who are bottom dwelling scum. Or maybe that's just me. Either way, this is not about any individual or candidate, this is about fundamental differences in the two groups as a whole.

With that in mind, let's continue.

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”

Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

When I heard Peter being interviewed on Fox and Friends this morning, I had the same reaction to these stats that he expresses in his article. I think it's because of the basic difference between liberal and conservative ideology. Conservatives believe in absolute moral truth. In other words, conservatives see things in black and white, or right and wrong. Liberals, on the other hand, believe truth is relative and open to interpretation. When your basic belief system is based on the principle of moral relativism, then most anything is possible and lying and/or cheating are okay in certain circumstances.

I plan on reading his book, “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less ... And Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals”, as soon as I can get my hands on it. In the mean time, I suggest you go read the whole article.

Labels: conservatism, inconvenient truth, required reading

What if D-Day had occurred in June of 2007, instead of 1944?

The acting leaves a little to be desired, but I think the message is dead on accurate.

Labels: biting sarcasm, mediots, military, war

At least according to this U.K. researcher. The article is actually kind of interesting, but there was one line in it that caught my attention, and now I can't think about anything else.

Prof McManus, who once won an award for his study of testicles in ancient Greek sculpture,..."

He won an award for studying testicles in ancient Greek sculpture. I'll pause a moment to let you contemplate that.

Questions:
1. How many times do you think his fellow researchers called him "Gay" after he announced this study?
2. How do you keep a straight face when standing before a committee to ask for money to "study testicles in ancient Greek sculpture"?
3. 20 - 1 that he's got at least one set of Greek testicles in his home somewhere. Probably on his nightstand.

I can't believe no one in this country ever thought to do this study.

Labels: governmental idiocy, pointless silliness