Zero Tolerance = Zero Logic

Hugs have been banned in one Connecticut School.  Principal Catherine Williams sent out a letter earlier in the week telling parents recent behavior has seriously impacted the safety and learning at the school.”Observed behaviors of concern recently exhibited include kicking others in the groin area, grabbing and touching of others in personal areas, hugging and horseplay. Physical contact is prohibited to keep all students safe in the learning environment,” Williams wrote.

Instead of looking at situations children get in on a case-by-case basis and determining the correct response like an adult should be able to do, high-fives and hugging are now equated to kicking someone in the groin.  At this point it should be looked into in order to see if there is anyone who actually is an adult at that school.  Hammering down on pats on the back is supposed to keep everyone in a safe learning environment, but in reality it is another example of zero tolerance failing to do anything good at all.

Zero Tolerance is the weakest excuse for discipline possible.   Some people goof up, others are malicious, yet others might not even know there’s something wrong with their actions when it comes to touching someone else, so having the same policy for every case is laughable at best and outlines ineptitude at its worst.

Biden: Either Out of Touch or Out of Clues

Vice President Biden stated, “I would say to the protesters that unless we talk, unless we attempt to deal with this changed circumstance we find ourselves in, there is no solution. Things will only get worse.” This comment was in relation to the several thousand protesters who will be camped outside of the G20 meetings in London.   I do not find myself sympathizing much with these protestors because they have not been able to convey any message of meaning.  As reported, “The Put People First march was organised by a “rainbow alliance” of 150 trade unions, church groups and charities including ActionAid, Save the Children and Friends of the Earth. The theme was “jobs, justice and climate” and the message was aimed at the world leaders who will be gathering for the G20 summit here next week.”

Of course, anyone should be able to figure out that this not a ‘theme’, but three themes all jumbled together in a way to weakly link a lack of jobs, a lack of justice, and a changing climate to the ‘big bad rich nations’ and their ‘corporate goons’.  These people don’t like the way things are going, they haven’t like the way things have been going for quite some time and are interested in a completely different way… at least those not paid to be in attendence in order to boost numbers.

Vice President Biden should realize that their opinion will not change no matter what the results or decisions made in this conference; they do not like the fact that there even is a conference.  VP Biden comes off sounding weak and as if he is whining about there being a group of people who despise him and in fact, the idea of personal freedom.   Strangely, it is the unions and the environmentalists which his party woos during every election, and yet here his is offering up the weakest effort to explain what is going on to them.

We need to all remember the lack of effort and the false assumptions VP Biden works under: He assumes these people who are currently against him want the same ‘end game’ he does, he also assumes that talking it over will get them all neatly on the same page if they only would listen to good ole Joe.

Joe’d do well to listen, The Put People First march was organised by a “rainbow alliance” of 150 trade unions, church groups and charities including He said the march would have to mark the start of a more concerted movement to properly regulate financial institutions and invest in climate change solutions. “This is just the beginning of the prelude of the prologue. The forces of greed are very tenacious and just because we march up and down it won’t make a difference on its own.”

The protesters know this alone will do nothing to make the G20 people change, yet Biden thinks that if they only read the plans and proposals they’ll ‘see the light’.   This is very problematic and something that can be seen in the rhetoric not just with the Vice President, but also with the President: There is an idea, a false mind-set that assumes that talking and negotiation will make people see things your way, whether it is related to G20 protesters or talks with Iran, Venezuela, or even North Korea.  I do not think the modern Democratic Party understands that there are people out there who will never like or agree with the way we do things, and they will stop at nothing to first stop the spread of these ideas and then reverse the trend all the way up to and including destroying the United States.  These people do not want to hear your pathetic cries for diplomacy, unless it gives them more time to plan their own actions.

Not just Joe Biden, but the controlling body of the Democratic Party have lost contact with the realities of foreign policy and now send YouTube messages to foreign leaders or beg for protesters to give them a chance in a set of negotiations where the protesters will hate the outcome no matter what.

How much longer will ‘We the People’  permit these types to be elected and let them dictate the policy of this nation?

Lovelle Mixon will Rot in Hell

And that is exactly what he deserves.

But wait, there are actual people in this world who think he is a hero?  Those people need to be deported to somewhere quite unpleasant for their stupidity and willingness to insult those serving in one of the most thankless jobs around.

One fool who actually professed his stupidity, first hand, and for all to see said, “I don’t condone what he did, but karma comes around. What goes around comes around.”

This brilliance is of course true, a murderous thug who runs away after shooting police who are stopping him because he’s too much of an idiot to check in for parole get killed.   Too bad for the murderous thug I guess right?   No way.   Too bad for the four police officers who were shot while trying take such an imbecile off the street.  Too bad the city had to lose four fine officers doing their job to protect a thankless crowd of hooligans and anarchists who can not keep their own city clean while they live in their own filth and squalor; the whole time they complain about this and that without ever looking at themselves as the possible reason for their own conditions.

The ACLU on one hand complains:

Dodging Responsibility for Inadequate Police Presence?

Many neighborhoods report that inadequate police presence has been a persistent and growing problem. The Washington Post has noted poor police presence in several stories on particular D.C. crime. Here are just three examples:

District Shaken by Spate of Violence; Six Killed, Three Injured in Four Days; Residents Criticize Poor Police Presence (Mar. 14, 2002; Page B4)

D.C. Officers to Put In More Street Time; At Crime Forum, Chief Responds to Complaints (Jan.26, 2003; Page C6)

Police Meet With Public, But Officers Are Scarce (Mar. 20, 2003; Page T3)

The ACLU also complains about police presence:

Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Public Schools, a joint-report by the NYCLU and ACLU, showed how the massive police presence in city schools negatively affects students, especially students of color.

What then should the police do?  Too few police is a travesty of justice, too many police and you become racist.  When groups like the ACLU do nothing more than flame the fires of discontent and bring lawsuit after lawsuit against the same cities responsible for trying to contain and reduce crime, this is the result you get:  A group of angry lower-class, ignorant protesters who make a hero out of a murderous scumbag to prove a point, though that point loses credibility when they attempt to make it in this situation.

I know, perhaps if they riot and burn down their own neighborhoods the point will be driven home.

Lawyers

We all have heard jokes about, and at the expense of, lawyers.

We all know stories of how lawyers bastardize the idea of legal justice in order to get their client either a bigger award or off the hook.

Most people do not like all the lawsuits and corruption in the courtroom.

Is it any irony that so many people in Congress are or were lawyers?  The same people who work for those big law firms get to also be the ones who…   WRITE the laws of the land.   Is this not a conflict of interest?

A telling statistic shows that, of all lawyers and law firms, during the last election cycle, lawyers gave a total of $232,323,361.  That’s over $232 million dollars.  Because some many people like to act like one party is the same as the other, the natural assumption is that the money was handed out relatively equally.  This idea could not be further from the truth.  76% of the money, or $177,436,159 was given to Democrats.

Barack Obama (D)	$42,861,936
Hillary Clinton (D)	$15,749,506
John McCain (R)	$10,116,660
John Edwards (D)	$7,808,769
Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)	$4,196,831
Mitt Romney (R)	$2,842,810
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)	$2,343,747
Bill Richardson (D)	$1,887,325
Christopher J. Dodd (D)	$1,233,801
Fred Thompson (R)	$1,063,219
Mike Huckabee (R)	$363,347
Ron Paul (R)	$267,188
Thomas J. Vilsack (D)	$118,700
Sam Brownback (R)	$79,954
Tommy Thompson (R)	$63,293
Ralph Nader (I)	$52,988
Dennis J. Kucinich (D)	$37,231
Duncan Hunter (R)	$36,250
Jim Gilmore (R)	$30,050
Tom Tancredo (R)	$13,930
Bob Barr (L)	$11,500
Mike Gravel (D)	$5,050
Alan Keyes (R)	$4,050
Cynthia McKinney (3)	$2,200

Why would so many people who know the effects of our sue-happy society filled with people bringing suits against each other for the most idiotic of reasons vote for people who are in bed with the problem?

Do people actually know who is backing the party determined to take our money and thus our easiest form of freedom?  They threaten to change everything you do and they do they make these threats via fear mongering in the name of the poor, children, minorities, and the environment.  When they cannot win with arguments they then turn to their friends in Congress and lawyers to make laws and then using special interests like the ACLU they sue to force the courts to change the way we live our daily lives.    Because the vast majority of us in the country do believe in the word of law, we do not fight since we foolishly assume that all others want the same thing we do.

How much longer will you permit these people to reign over your freedom and threaten your way of living?

The Laughable Idea of Changing One’s Sex

It is reported, “A 25-year-old transsexual Spaniard claims to be pregnant with twins after artificial insemination in the first such case in Spain, local media reported on Sunday.”I am six-and-a-half weeks pregnant,” Ruben Noe Coronado Jimenez, initially named Estefania, told the popular magazine Pronto, saying he took treatment to restart his menstrual cycle.”

The statement that, “he took treatment to restart his menstrual cycle” is one of complete idiocy and is a lie.  ‘He’ is not a he but a she.  Idiocy because we are acting as if cutting off, or adding flesh to a certain area, or areas magically changes your sex.   This is as false as can be.  “The 23^rd pair of human chromosomes determine gender. Human females carry two X chromosomes: one inherited from the mother, one from the father. Human males carry one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Males inherit their X chromosome from their mothers and their Y chromosome from their fathers.” ¹ That is the scientific answer, though the term gender should not be tossed around as being a synonym for the word sex.

It is one of the more laughable ideas also because usually people on the left tend to mock religion as abandoning or ignoring science and reason, yet here is a great example of the left being just as guilty, and hypocritically so, when it seems like a neat thing to do.   So, in the end, no matter how much cutting and designing of flesh one engages in, no matter how much estrogen or testosterone one is administered, you will not change the fact that you are as you were born. Yes, there are some people who have genetic problems with this, like those with Turner’s Syndrome, but that is a different discussion.

In the story, SHE is pregnant, SHE will be giving birth, and SHE will then try to be something that she is not.   Although I find it revolting in every form, I personally do not care what one cuts off or sticks on one’s own body, but I completely object to the idea that is transforms your sex from male to female or vice versa given the fact that science supplies a perfectly good rationale for knowing that sex doesn’t change because of an operation or some hormones.  Science does this, not religion, not personal opinion.  This is fact.  Please do not further people in their delusions that one’s sex can change because of these things.

What, Obama Worry?

Initially there was a crisis, then President Obama was down-playing it all, and now he yucks it up.  In his 60 Minutes interview the President seemed quite content to laugh it all away:

His remarks came in a “60 Minutes” interview in which he was pressed by an incredulous Steve Kroft for laughing and chuckling several times while discussing the perilous state of the world’s economy.“You’re sitting here. And you’re— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about money—’ How do you deal with— I mean: explain. . .” Kroft asks at one point. “Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft says.
“No, no. There’s gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day,” Obama says, with a laugh.

The running ideas of comparing the situation to the one faced by Roosevelt fails on so many levels, and most obviously his current levity regarding putting $1 trillion of new currency into the financial world is not fit to compare to the actual Great Depression.

Hope and Change?   Change is all that’s left from the dollar bill I used to have, so I guess he can laugh it up with his ex-Fannie Mae multi-millionaire friends who now hold positions in his administration.   I guess he is laughing; he is laughing at us.

How much longer will you tolerate such elitist, out of touch, people in positions in power?  How much longer will America permit the Federal government to have and abuse all this power?

Slanted Media?

Is there anyone who still does not think there is a media bias in favor of President Obama?  The media has fallen in love with the idea of the Obama Presidency so much that are willing to ignore stories which may tarnish their own estimation of his pending greatness, and they will also bury any attempts by thier own people who decide to be critical.   This is the state of today’s media, this is the state of today’s political atmosphere.   Luckily our friends across the pond have not bought into this idiocy and they have not shirked their duties to report and inform both the positives (few and far between these days) and the negatives.

This article at the Telegraph is a good example of things you may or may not have heard about:

Just after he’s been sworn in by him, the newly-minted Vice President Joe Biden gets the name of Justice John Paul Stevens, “one of the great justices” of the Supreme Court, wrong by calling him “Justice Stewart”.

If the VPs name were Dan Quayle I know we’d still be hearing about this inability to get the name correct of someone who the VP thinks is a great justice.  Didn’t make the news?   Too inconsequential to bother reporting?  Perhaps.

Barack Obama jokes about Nancy Reagan having séances in the White House. He later called her to apologise after the AP noted that although she had consulted astrologers, “she did not hold conversations with the dead”.

I’m not a big believer in astrology, to be fair, but the usual habit of not speaking ill or mocking of former presidents or their families seems to be a lost art for modern Democrats.  Poor form for the new President.  Didn’t make the news?   Too inconsequential to bother reporting?  Perhaps.

Joe Biden forgets the “website number” for the White House internet site designed to show how TARP money is being spent.

This seems like a small error, but as I recall the Obama campaign railed against a technologically illiterate John McCain because he doesn’t send emails, and does not use the web until it was reported the reason being due to the injuries sustained while being tortured as a POW.   The media ran with the out of touch line, but when the truth as to why came out they were silent and simply dropped the angle.   What is Bidden’s excuse for 1) not knowing the web site for such a historically large bill,  and 2) not even knowing the correct term for the website — and please do not claim he was asking for the IP address.  Didn’t make the news?   Too inconsequential to bother reporting?  Perhaps.

A Marine One double. First, on his maiden Marine One trip Obama breaches protocol and makes life uncomfortable for an enlisted marine by shaking the the serviceman’s hand as he’s saluting his commander-in-chief, then – Gerald Ford, eat your heart out. Barack Obama bangs his head as he boards his helicopter.

I’m not so concerned with biffing his head, but when you become Commander-in-Chief, is it not worth your time to know some of the protocols and expectations of the position since you will be publicly interacting with members of the branches of the military which you now command?   The election was won in early November but he was never briefed, or just does not care?  Didn’t make the news?   Too inconsequential to bother reporting?  Perhaps.

Joe Biden tells his wife that he had the choice of being either Secretary of State or vice-president – an offer that was news to Obama aides and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when Jill Biden spilled the beans on Oprah.

A candid moment from the VPs wife results in…  nothing for the media.   Seems intriguing to see that such high level positions were being tossed around and that, evidently Joe was given pick before Hillary.   Any news-worthy items there?   I guess not.  Didn’t make the news out side of Oprah’s show?   Too inconsequential to bother reporting?  Perhaps.

Gordon Brown presents the new President with: a pen holder carved from the timbers of HMS Gannett, a sister ship of HMS Resolute; the commissioning certificate of HMS Resolute; and a seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill. In return, the Prime minister gets 25 DVDS, which don’t work in Britain.

This one is unforgivable.  This arrogance and inconsideration is topped off with a large dose of stupidity.  Let’s not forget also that a State Department official declared [t]he real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key. The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

These arrogant fools in the White House now want to equate the relationship we have with the United Kingdom to being on the same level as, and no more important than, our relationship with, say, Iceland?  I’m uncertain if this Administration is aware as to how many British soldiers have given their lives to honor the treaties and requests of the United States in overseas engagement.  What we have with the United Kingdom is special, and if the Democrats in power can not see that, then their worthless ideas of culrutal relativism are firmly in place.

How much longer are you willing to accept people like this as being the best possible candidates to represent us at the federal level?

Unelected Officials to have Authority of Company Payrolls?

The New York Times reports, “That proposal would, for instance, make it easier for the government to cancel bonus contracts like those given to executives at the American International Group which have stoked a political furor. Under the proposal, the Treasury secretary would have the authority to seize and wind down a struggling institution after consulting with the president and upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the Federal Reserve board.”

The Treasury secretary (unelected) would have the power to seize a ‘struggling’ institution after merely consulting (what does that mean?) with the president, and upon recommendation of two-thirds the Federal Reserve board (none of whom are elected).  Consultation with the president could mean something like, “Mr. President, I think I’d like to be the new CEO of Microsoft, and I think some other unelected bureaucrats agree.  The company is distressed in the estimation of the the Fed. because of the personal scandal involving the current CEO and since many of the government systems use Microsoft was their operating system, it is in the interest of both the public and the nation as a whole to seize.”

It would be sort of like a mini-UN worth of unelected elitists getting to call the shots, but unlike the UN these career bureaucrats would have the backing of US law to walk Federal Agents through the front door and by force of law (thus force of gun) remove executives and change the policies of private institutions.  Why?  All because the elected officials of Congress passed a corporate charity bill without actually knowing what it said.  So because the failed efforts of Washington have come home to roost and neither party can adequately blame the other the only logical answer is to blame private citizens.  And since this is a small enough group of private citizens who make substantially more money than most, they can play the Marxist class-warfare strategy and single out this minority group of citizens to shoulder the blame because the average American won’t seem to notice or care… at this time.

Only days after deciding to create in incredibly large amount of fresh currency does the same federal government now plot to control even more of the market in an effort, as usually, to protect us all.   Strange how protecting us always results in more federal authority and  more of  ‘We the People’ having to either ask permission or completely losing the freedom to simply do it on our own.    And you want these same people to have more authority over you and your freedoms?

Making more Dollars is not the Answer

Terence Corcoran recently wrote about how the United States is fabricating more currency in order to assist itself in buying back some outstanding debt.  At best, this is a silly as when people have tired to keep their credit card debt cycling from one card to another: yes, it works at first until no one wants to deal with how many lines of credit you have open and they offers stop coming.   Of course with the U.S. the ‘offers’ do not come from outside companies, but from our ability to mint or otherwise produce our own currency.  The obvious problem with this approach should be obvious: If when we had $100 floating as a total of US currency, $1 used to buy product A, and now there’s $200 out there, odds are the price of Product A will rise.   Perhaps product A will not rise to $2 due to the fact that the new increase of dollars isn’t spread evenly across those who may be willing to purchase product A, but it will rise accordingly to meet the demand.    It may rise MORE than expected as well if there is concern that more currency will be minted or that there may be a financial panic on the horizon due to this action.

Look to see how much banks begin to raise their rates as well if they see any chance of inflation on the horizon.  Part of their equation for lending is to make sure that they equal or beat the rate of inflation over the time of the loan and if this injection of currency throws off their projections then it will not matter how low the Fed makes any of their rates, the banks will adjust their own accordingly.

Of course, in the short term, this now reduces the amount of our own nation debt as a proportion of how much currency there is and since the government takes initial posession of the money it would be easier to pay downt he debt with this fresh currency, but as stated, once everyone knows exactly how much new currency there is and where that currency is headed all parties will adjust their terms accordingly — including rasing their rates against US debt or being unwilling to lend at all.   Odds are that it will not come to the extreme since the US is such a large consumer, but it is good to remember that we are also a debtor nation so while adds are not in favor of that happening, someone may do a call on us and force our hand.

What do the powers that be in Washington D.C. think about all this?   I’m uncertain that they have given it much thought.  Perhaps they are complicit in it as Mr. Corcoran suggests, “The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues , but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U.S. law on display for what they are: ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.”

To close it seems most fitting to let Mr. corcoran have the final say, “Reform of health care, environmental policy, education, energy, banking, regulation — every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy has been put on alert for major change. Expansion of government spending, plunging the U.S. into unprecedented deficits, is without parallel. In economic policy, through regulation and control of energy output, financial services and monetary expansion, the U.S. government has embarked on a fundamental reshaping of America. It is designed, in short, to bring on the end of America.”

Speaker Pelosi calls law-breakers ‘Patriotic’, but to which nation?

Confused Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to tell illegal that there were patriotic by coming out of hiding and joining her at a speaking engagement, “The speaker, condemning raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, referred to the immigrants she was addressing as “very, very patriotic.””

I want to clarify some things:

The Oath of Office for members of the House of Representatives:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Federal Law, as provided for under said Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies exactly what is considered to be a legal, and thus illegal alien in this country and authorized the Attorney General to take appropriate measures to ensure that illegal aliens are apprehended, held, and then imprisoned / deported.  Congress passed this legislation and she, as a congressman is sworn to uphold it.  Calling those who break this law patriots, and her neglect at ensuring the law is followed is at the very least failing to uphold her oath, and at it’s worst is seditious.

As a citizen, I certainly would like to know to which nation Speaker Pelosi thinks these law-breakers are patriots?   Certainly not the one in which she is Speaker of the House, sworn to uphold and maintain the laws of the land.  It is one thing to disagree with a law, and as a member of Congress she has it within her power to change the law, it is a totally different thing to promote the breaking of the law and to go even further by condemning the U.S. Government for following the same law Congress has passed.  Is this the type of person to whom you want to give more of your money and freedom, to have more authority over you and your life?