February 29, 2012


It seems that our commenting was disabled due to a conflict with our blog template.  It's been corrected, so you should be able to leave comments again.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.  No, really!

February 28, 2012

The House Attacks Our Rights

First, let's be clear about the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The official story of H.R. 347 is that Congress wants to make it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House.  This is in response to several cases in recent years where some citizen decided they wanted to make a point to the President in person.  Currently, it's not clear that it's illegal for citizens to enter White House grounds to protest something; after all, it's not private property; taxpaying citizens pay for it. It might be illegal, but it's a gray area.  So Congress is doing what Congress does, it's passing a law to clarify the matter.

But it may be doing more than simply making the White House more secure.

Let's look at H.R. 347, introduced by Representative Thomas J. Rooney, (R-Fla Dist. 16), which was passed in the House of Representatives 388-3, to see what the fuss is about
(a) Whoever--
  • (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
  • (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
  • (3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
  • (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
Well, disrupting the status quo has long been part and parcel of large protests, going back to The Boston Tea Party. Sure, we don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry urinating on the White House porch to show their disdain of the President.  But the law doesn't stop at simply keeping people off the White House lawn without permission:
(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
  • (A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
  • (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
  • (C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance...
"Special event of national significance?"  Like an Independence Day celebration?  Or a Thanksgiving Day Parade?  This is awfully vague.  Consider:
Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
What this bill seems to say is that if a group of citizens gathers in a crowd outside someplace the President is at - the White House, Congress, a high school auditorium, whatever - with the intent of making sure that he sees them and hears their message, that they will be arrested if that protest hampers him in any way.  I can see Richard M. Nixon being delighted with this kind of law.

The way I read it, if protestors are outside the Capital building and chanting "Give Peace A Chance" loud enough that Congress can't ignore them, they could be arrested.

And the punishment is no slap on the wrist; if the citizen is exercising their second amendment right to bear arms, as many Tea Party attendees have done in the past, they could face up to ten years in prison.  And even if they aren't armed, they could do a year in jail.

Tom Rooney seems to be turning his back on our Founding Fathers, and trampling all over the Constitution; the First Amendment is intended to allow protest,  LOUD protest.  What good is having the freedom to say what you want when you can't say it loudly enough not to be ignored without being thrown in jail?
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...
When you can be thrown in jail for speaking loudly enough that Congress has to stop to listen, Freedom of Speech has clearly been abridged.

This is a bad law.

February 27, 2012

Birthers Redux; Three Strikes

My conservative relative who will remain nameless sent me another in a long line of easily exposed right-wing propaganda; it seems that the Birthers have renewed their efforts to "prove" that Barack Obama wasn't actually born in the United States.

And like every other attempt, this three step "exposé" does not stand up under scrutiny.  It's even more lame than their original thoroughly fraudulent theory.

This new failed attempt is called:
“Very Interesting Bit Of Detective Work”
That really should read "defective".   Sorry, didn't mean to cut in this soon.

“Very Interesting Bit Of Detective Work”

1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is 'African-American' when the term wasn't even used at that time?
Ah, just as the Swift-boaters determined a font was wrong, these "detectives" have determined that because a modern term was used, it's obvious that the document is fake.

There's only one problem with this "fact."  It's completely false.  Not about the usage of the term; about the birth certificate.  I found a copy of it on the Huffington Post.  And here's what it actually says about his father's race:
AFRICAN.  Not "African-American".  Since Barack Obama's father was from Africa, this is the correct usage for the time period.  Africans were black people from Africa, Negroes were black people from the United States.

And this one didn't take any research.  I just had to read the damned certificate.

So much for glaringly obvious lie number one.

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known then as the “British East Africa Protectorate".
Wow.  So Kenya didn't exist until 1963, huh?  That would be a compelling piece of evidence, if it were true.

But it's not true.

Let's turn to the front page of the Toronto Daily Star for February 6, 1952:

Let's zoom in on that date:

It's a little messy, but it reads Wednesday, February 6, 1952.  Of course, feel free to look up the death of King George IV to confirm the dates.

So, at least as far as Canada was concerned, there was in fact a place called "Kenya" nine years prior to 1961.  Princess Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Philip, were called back from Kenya (and not the "British East Africa Protectorate") so Elizabeth could be crowned queen. 

And while this piece of information alone is enough to completely savage the riotously insane notion that Kenya didn't exist in 1961, I don't want to waste the research I did before I found this lovely image.

The British East Africa Protectorate was created in 1888.

Kenya was, in fact, a part of the British East Africa Protectorate, which consisted of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and parts of Somalia (then known as Jubaland).

Kenya was the part known as KENYA.

In 1895, the British East Africa Protectorate was reorganized into the East Africa Protectorate, or simply East Africa.

Kenya became a formal colony, the Kenya Colony, in 1920.  Kenya, East Africa.

Which, hey, is EXACTLY what is on the Birth Certificate!

So much for glaringly obvious lie number two.

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
How could it be?  Because that's what its name actually was in 1961.

SacredHealing.com has a service called TriAdoption.
TRIADOPTION® was formed as an information center in 1978 to gather and dispense data to assist adoptees, birthparents, siblings and others in locating family members.... We began with a very important work by Reg Niles where he documented hundreds of adoption agencies, orphanages and maternity homes that cropped up in the 20th century and in many cases closed, moved or disappeared. For adoptees and birth families seeking their information, this is a valuable resource.
They've scanned and uploaded Reg Nile's book: Adoption Agencies, Orphanages and Maternity Homes:An Historical Directory - Volumes 1 & 2, ©1981.  This book was culled from records of state governments; from licenses issued and articles of incorporation filed through the years.

And it has a chapter on Hawaii.

Here's the entry for the hospital Barack Obama was born in:
So, according to state of Hawaii records, the name "Kapiolani Maternity Gynecological Hospital" goes back to 1937, and was still the name of the hospital when Barack Obama was born there in 1961.

Three strikes, you're out of the game. So all you pathetic birthers can put on your tinfoil hats and run home to drink the green Kool-aid.

February 19, 2012

Learning from Greece and Europe

As much as I disagree with most of what the Republican Party has been saying about restoring our economy, they are right about one thing:

We need to learn from Europe's mistakes, to avoid the kind of economic upheaval they're having in Greece.

But the lessons to be learned are not what the Republicans predicted.
Demanding rigid austerity from them as the price of European support has lengthened and deepened their recessions. It has made their debts harder, not easier, to pay off.

This is not an issue of philosophical debate. The numbers are in.
- New York Times Editorial, February 17, 2012.
As the reports roll in from across Europe, again and again we hear that steep spending cuts have not only not improved the target economies; they've made them worse.
Portugal is a debtor nation that has done everything that the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have asked it to, in exchange for the 78 billion euro (about $103 billion) bailout Lisbon received last May.

And yet, by the broadest measure of a country’s ability to repay its debts, Portugal is going deeper into the hole.
Vitor Gaspar, the Portuguese finance minister... has reduced the government’s budget deficit by more than one-third so far, through tough measures that include cuts in spending and wages, pension rollbacks and tax increases.

But many economists say those moves are also a reason Portugal’s economy shrank by 1.5 percent in 2011 and is expected to contract by 3 percent this year.
-Portugal's Debt Efforts May Be Warning for Greece, NYT, Feb 14 2012
Republicans like to chant that Reagan turned our economy down by cutting our taxes.  But they always seem to forget that he also increased spending.  The tax cut fought inflation, but it was the spending that stimulated our economy then.

Now read this next bit, and notice the bit I emphasized:
If Portugal and other European debtors find it increasingly difficult to pay off their creditors because of slow or no growth, some experts predict they, too, might eventually need to negotiate debt write-downs. That was how things played out in Latin America in the 1980s, once it became clear that the I.M.F.’s relentless austerity push was impeding the growth that countries needed to pay down debt.
-Portugal's Debt Efforts May Be Warning for Greece, NYT, Feb 14 2012
This isn't the first time that austerity measures caused economic collapse; these are lessons we should have learned thirty years ago!

The lesson to be learned is that simply cutting the budget does not result in a healthy economy.  That's not to say that we shouldn't keep an eye on our spending; we should make sure that we're getting return on value for every dollar spent.  But we shouldn't believe that we can budget-cut our economic troubles away when that approach hasn't worked anywhere else.

February 18, 2012

Santorum Lies To Public

CNN reports that Santorum is trying to clarify his position on contraception in the wake of an interview where he stated that not only does he not believe that all health plans should include access to it, no one should use it; not even married people:
One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative...  if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation... you diminish this very special bond between men and women... 

...I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.
- TIME, February 14, 2012
That's his opinion, and he's welcome to it.  Of course, it's not the opinion of a vast majority of Americans, 80% of whom approve of contraception, in and out of marriage.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that he seeks to backtrack, and re-state his position that it won't alienate 80% of the voting public come election day.
Rick Santorum sought to bring some clarity to his birth control position on Friday, which he said has been misconstrued by opponents which have put him on both sides of the issue.

"My position is birth control can and should be available," the former senator from Pennsylvania said at a campaign event in Columbus, Ohio.
- CNN, February 17, 2012
That's pretty clear and to the point, isn't it?

But it's also a complete and total lie.  

We know it's a lie because on his website, he clearly outlines his agenda if elected president, and it includes:
  • Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations...
  • Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans
  • Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution
Title X ensures that low-income families have access to family planning services and related preventive health services (protection against STDs, for example).

I think we're all familiar with the recent mandate that ALL health plans include access to contraceptives, but if you're not, that's all it does.

The nefarious Personhood Amendment calls for the definition of human life to begin not with the onset of pregnancy, but at the fertilization of the egg.  Since the most popular contraceptives are designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, this amendment would effectively ban most common contraceptives, including the pill, Norplant, and IUDs.

The bottom line; you can't claim to support someone's right to have access to birth control when several of the planks of the platform you are running on specifically eliminates birth control or access to birth control.

Rick Santorum is many things; but "liar" should probably be listed first, to put the rest into proper perspective.

February 17, 2012

Keep Your Sweaty Palms Out Of My Pants, Rick Santorum.

I gotta say, I don't understand why anyone has their knickers in a twist over comments made by billionaire Foster Freiss.  He was being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell, when he blurted out:
"This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."
Cue outrage.

It's not a new joke.  There are variations, where it's not aspirin.  I've heard oranges, apples, and potatoes used in the same fashion.  Old news.

Rick Santorum made the following statement about it on CBS This Morning:
"This is someone who is a supporter of mine, and I’m not responsible for
every comment that a supporter of mine makes," he told Charlie Rose.
"It was a bad joke, it was a stupid joke, and it is not reflective of me
or my record on this issue."
So what, exactly, is Rick Santorum's position on contraception?
One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
- TIME, Feb 14, 2012
Yes, Santorum's actual position is a lot worse than Freiss's.  He's just moved our bedrooms, and our most personal, private relationships, into the arena of National Policy.  He doesn't just want to ban abortions, he's not merely someone who won't use contraception. He wants to dictate what you do in the bedroom.  His god doesn't approve.

Aren't Republicans about less government, and staying out of people's personal lives?  I don't think a potential Presidential candidate could be much more intrusive than this.  Just one more proof that the Party of Lincoln is as dead as he is.

Why are we event talking about contraception?  Because the Catholic Church is unhappy.

People are mad that the Affordable Health Care Act dictates that all health plans must include access to contraception and family planning counsel.  Some daft fools are stating that he's violating the Catholic Church's rights.  Of course, what these undereducated folks miss is the fact that a benefits package is for THE EMPLOYEE, not the employer.  Religious organizations are free to tell their adherents what is or isn't permissible to their religious tenets, and the ACA doesn't interfere with that.  There are Catholics right now, working outside the Church at firms that offer birth control.  They don't have to take it. And Catholics working FOR the Church also don't have to take it.

But the Catholic Church employs people of other faiths, at their various secular institutions; hospitals, schools, and various charities.  The Church does not have any right to prevent these non-Catholic employees from using contraception.  They are employees, not adherents.

Organizations protesting that they are being forced to fund activities proscribed by the articles of their faith.  And that's a load of hooey. It's no different than pacifists trying to get out of paying taxes because some tax dollars fund the military.

These organizations are funding their employee's health care.  The employees make their choices according the dictates of their faith.  It's as American as Apple Pie. 

Santorum is a relic, not from a simpler time, but from a simple-minded time.  A hundred years ago, his cause would have been Temperance.  Remember Prohibition?  A group of well-intentioned True Believers managed to legislate morality; they made alcohol illegal.  The result wasn't the end of domestic unrest as they'd predicted; instead, they created a huge black market that most Americans participated in.  Gang wars resulted.  A few street gangs grew into organized crime; corruption ruled.  Prohibition was overturned, but the criminal organizations remain; now they deal in illegal narcotics and prostitution.

And that's the America Rick Santorum represents.  He doesn't mean to.  And he probably doesn't even know it.  Or maybe, just maybe, he doesn't care, as long as he can dictate how you live your lives.

February 16, 2012

Speak for Yourself, 'Nos Populus'

A conservative relative who shall remain nameless sent me a link to this video:


This video just came out & it already has over 6 Million Hits

This is without a doubt the best video that has come out and apparently 6 Million others think so too because there have been 6 million hits in 4 days

Ahh, yes, a lot of people looked at it, therefore, they must support it and adore it.  Of course, Castro stormed Cuba with less than a hundred men, and had the entire country behind him within a week, and you might have heard something about how that turned out. But I digress.

So of course, I have to dissect this little propaganda video created by the great scholar, Nos Populus.

I'll use screen caps, so you don't have to run the video while reading this. 

Cue overtly patriotic music, and zoom in over the Constitution of the United States.  Scroll text!

The problem with this is that Nos Populus don't speak for all people; and come election day, we'll see if they even speak for most people. If they didn't want to lie, they should have stated "We, SOME people..."  Because based on this video, he sure as shit doesn't speak for me.

My relative scoffed back at me; "Well, the Constitution reads 'we, the people.'"  And yes, the Constitution does in fact start with the phrase "WE, The People..."  But the people who wrote the Constitution were duly elected representatives of The People. They were given the right to speak on our behalf.  Nos Populus is some right-wing conspiracy nut with access to a computer; he or she or they can only speak for his or her or their own self.

But since most every thing else they claim wanders from merely vague to outlandishly false, I guess we can't be too surprised.

Isn't this from the cover of Dianetics?  I'm sure it's off some religious tract.  But at least we're starting from a point we recognize; hope and change.

Subjugation?  Who the hell is being subjugated?  I mean, besides this vaguely fake looking guy in the photo. Are they talking about those (current) Iranian hostages?  The Cuban people?  Chinese academics?  They never say.  But we'll stipulate that no one likes subjugation.  Well, except for those crazy whips and chain people fetishists.  They actually like it to a degree that I'm personally uncomfortable with, but to each his-or-her own.

So what's next?

He "violated the Constitution." How did he do that, exactly?  This pale Ann Coulter impersonator giving us a "thumbs-down" isn't a terribly compelling argument.  In fact, it's not an argument at all.  It's just a claim without any foundation.

After all, it's not like he's trying to get prayer into our taxpayer funded public classrooms, which is a clear violation of the Constitution.

My relative stomped and snorted that there so many examples of egregious violations "I don't know how he hasn't been impeached."

My relative has a point; Clinton was impeached, and he didn't even violate the Constitution once.  He did, however, violate his wedding vows.  Which also isn't impeachable.

And here's Obama, who has committed "so many egregious violations of the Constitution" that my relative could not list even a single one, and no one has tried to impeach him.

Perhaps they should play louder patriotic music, dress the model in Revolutionary costume.  That ought to do it.

What do they got next?

They claim he's "seized private industry" but again, fail to list even a single example of an industry he's seized. You'd think it would be hard to miss this, but I can find no record of it. If he has actually done this, I'd condemn it, but somehow it's never made the news.

I have a friend whose family fled Cuba; her grandparents owned a factory.  Castro seized it, and then put a price on their heads for having the audacity to claim that he was stealing it.  A "dead-or-alive" price, which is just what that sounds like.  Which is why they had to flee, of course. 

I find it hard to believe that our government could seize an entire industry and not one news outlet caught wind of it. But you can't argue with the strident voice over patriotic music and a woman with TWO thumbs down.

They also claim Obama's "destroyed jobs" and "perverted our economy" (whatever THAT means).

Again, a pretty woman giving us the "thumbs-down" doesn't actually tell us anything about how he's "perverting" anything.  Did he pull a Rocky Horror on our economy?  Did he get it all tramped out in fishnets and high-heels?

And yes, we've lost jobs, and might have lost a lot more if not for some of his actions. But "destroyed?"

Here's a subject near and dear to my heart:

Since Obama has been elected, I have marched three times to support free speech; once against the City of Fort Lauderdale's misguided attempt to make a movie production happy, and twice against a private security company who failed to read directives from Miami-Dade County. No connection to anything Obama has done. Did someone finally arrest Rush Limbaugh?  Glenn Beck?  Howard Stern?

Republican Governor Rick Scott has kicked the shit out of free speech - he booted all the non-Republicans from one bill signing, and spent much of his first year in office avoiding the press - but I haven't seen one example of Obama or his administration "curtailing" free speech.

And the wildly unfounded claims march on;

He's "corrupted our currency." Again, I don't even know what that means. Did he get our currency drunk and take its virginity?  Did he get it strung out on Ecstacy and drop it off naked at a frat party? Did he wipe his ass with dollar bills and then buy ice cream with them?

My personal favorite bald-faced lie: "he weakened our security." Let's see if we can figure this one out, shall we?

Did he do it by killing Osama Bin Laden, the biggest threat to our security, perhaps? Bin Laden, of course, is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, who eluded President Bush during his administration.  But Bush bravely vowed he would find the murderer, and searched every golf course in California.

No, wait; that was O.J. Simpson.  Sorry. Honest mistake.

Oh, wait, it's got to be when he helped Libyans overthrow General Mohamar Ghaddafi, the tyrannical dictator who helped terrorists blow up Pan Am 103. Yeah, freeing a country from a fascist dictator who sheltered terrorists certainly made us less safe.

He was also killing his own citizens if they said anything negative about him.  Things like "Our town's well ran dry"  or "You killed my mother for saying the well ran dry."

HEY!, I just realized - THESE must be the jobs Obama's destroyed; "despot," tyrant," "evil dictator" and "terrorist leader."  I have to admit, he certainly destroyed the fuck out of Osama Bin Laden.  And the Taliban has taken a beating, too.

Gotta say, though, I'm just fine with that.  Maybe we can destroy those Somalian pirates, next.

As the music swells, the action is too fast and furious for screen caps to make sense of it.

They claim he's compromised "cultural, legal and economic institutions" which directly results in children not leading our quality of life. Again, do they mention which institutions those are, and how they are compromised? No.  I do have to point out that it wasn't Obama or his party who keeps trying to cut funding to one of our greatest cultural institutions, the National Endowment for the Arts.

"Generational theft?" I've been watching conservatives rail against the EPA, which has reversed the pollution that was choking us.  A couple of Republican candidates have promised to shut the EPA down; if that isn't attempting to steal our future, I don't know what is.

But they are correct about our military. Yes, the brave souls of our armed forces absolutely lay their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. Something Obama has certainly acknowledged in no uncertain terms. And I for one am glad that he's getting them out of the morass of Iran and Afghanistan and bringing most of them home. I have very good friends serving over there.

The most "coercive government" in living memory - and I'll specify the most coercive US Government - has to be the one we had during Senator McCarthy's hearings on Un-American Activities (which, of course, I only know about from historical accounts).  They were so vile that they are now known as the McCarthy Witch Hunt Trials.

McCarthy would force you to testify before Congress.  He'd demand that you describe all the political leanings of your friends.  If you didn't, he'd accuse you of being anti-American, and you'd be blacklisted.  People wouldn't hire you, because maybe you were a Commie.  But even if you weren't, if they hired you, people would think they were Commies, and stop doing business with them.  Better not to hire you.  Or be seen with you.

That's what I call "coercive." What do the makers of this video consider coercive? They don't say.  They simply make the claim over patriotic music, and you're just supposed to accept it.

The sleazy weasels who authored this little musical smear are masters at pulling heart strings; they know full well that no one can dispel vague accusations with the harsh light of reality. While it's clear that they don't have any facts to back up their claims, the fact that they don't supply any facts means that there's nothing solid for anyone to dispute.

Setting their unfounded accusations to patriotic music and compelling images, speaking their gibberish in strident tones may give the illusion that they make a credible case, but in fact, this video makes not a single coherent argument. It's only gibberish.

I promise to stand up for liberty, too. And I'll do it by fighting against the sleazy lying scumbags who created this video, and those who swallow its hollow bile as some sort of valid manifesto. Those people are the real threat to our freedom; because they believe any empty lie they are told without question.

February 14, 2012

Cops take it too personal

From today's MiamiHerald.com:

It must be a tragic scene if cops are considering murder and suicide in response to it.