atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1520: Mr. Newt gets it right.

Neal Boortz discusses what Newt Gingrich said about the correct way to have responded to North Korea.

Obama's response--the typical liberal "oh we have to rid the world of nuclear weapons!"--is based in the fantasy world of the American left. The idea that the world will rid itself of nuclear weapons if only America does it first--it's laughable. Kim Jong-il doesn't want nuclear weapons because he's afraid that America will nuke him; he wants nuclear weapons so he can make other countries do what he wants them to. If you think that he doesn't want to seize South Korea, you'd better think again; ultimately the ability to threaten other countries with a nuclear attack is the best way to keep them from interfering in your plans. Given nuclear weapons and intercontinental capability, North Korea could move to take South Korea and then tell the US, "If you interfere we'll bomb you."

And if it happens with Obama in office--as has been shown!--Obama won't do jack squat to stop them.

* * *

Humor interlude before more doom and gloom:

Big Dick links to the Mahindra Dual Cab PikUp which will be sold here in 2010 as the Scorpio.

Lol:
Enter into the PikUp and you are bound to feel pampered by the convenience and comfort of the interiors. The interiors are expensive in every way - in length, breadth and height. The instrument cluster is absoutely contemporary and makes for effortless operation. Move the tiltable steering to your unique driving position and drive with ease. Sit back and sink into the contoured seats. Yes, pluch is the word. They provide great back support too. After all, what's luxury without a little logic.
Emphasis mine, as usual.

Ironically, this text--which was almost certainly generated by a non-native speaker of the language--is still more literate than the "how is babby formed" text I used in a prior entry to demonstrate what happens when you have excess capacitance on the D0 line of your 16550A UART.

But I am a great lover of "Engrish" anyway, even when it comes from non-Asian sources.

* * *

(I read the entire paragraph to my girlfriend in a faked Indian accent.)

* * *

Navvet55 at Big Dick's Place talks about Obama not being his President, "(sadly, part two in an ongoing series)". He raises the question of whether or not Obama is deliberately trying to make the US look weak to the world of islam, or is he merely a tool?

Navvet55 seems to conclude that Obama's doing it deliberately, but I can't rule out incompetence as a factor, here. With his remarks, during the campaign, that he would talk to Iran "without preconditions" he clearly showed that he is of the school of thought that you can reason with madmen--the same as that senator from 1939 who lamented, "If only I could have talked to Hitler!"

Maybe it's just because I don't want to believe that anyone elected to the Presidency could act with such perfidy, but I do believe that Obama is just incompetent, like Carter, and is not deliberately trying to screw things up. I believe that Obama thinks he's extending the hand of friendship and reconciliation to countries and groups who (he thnks) may rightfully believe that they've been hard done by the US.

The problem is, of course, that these countries and groups will take that hand, and then stab you in the back while they've got it pinned. Carter was given that lesson, and failed to learn it: right after he helped the radical muslims take power in Iran, they seized the US embassy and held US citizens prisoner right up until the very day Carter failed of re-election. Rather than accept Carter's gestures and accept friendship, they spit in his face, and all of Carter's subsequent actions proceeded from the mistaken assumption that these people could be reasoned with.

They can't.

That's why Obama's pledge that the US "...is not and will never be at war with Islam" can't stand. Islam is anathema to everything the US stands for. (Or, at least, used to stand for. I'm not so sure these days.) The concepts of freedom of religion, expression, press, assembly, and association--all of these things are specifically prohibited by islamic law.

It continuously confounds me that liberals can defend islam when liberals claim to be for so many things that islam categorically denies its subjects. If liberals were intellectually honest they would be on the forefront of condemning islam--I mean, look at how islamic law treats women, how it regulates who a woman may talk to, what she may wear, how she may comport herself, and when she must open her legs for a man. (And what will happen to her if she opens her legs for the wrong man, or if some strange man forces her legs open and has his way with her against her will?)

* * *

Scipio is not optimistic about Obama. Scipio is one of those who thinks that it's all being done as part of a plan to eliminate freedom in the US, to ensure that the Democrats are never out of power again. And I have to admit that I find it hard to argue with his reasoning, even while I find it to be hyperbolic.

It's true that the Obama administration has seized control of the census, and that the Democrats plan to count illegal aliens as citizens and alter the Congressional map to account for this. But the issue goes deeper.

The movement to eliminate the Electoral College, and elect Presidents based soley on the vote count, has gotten a toehold. (No surprises that Illinois is one of those states. Illinois sucks, politically.)

If this comes to pass--if the Electoral College is eliminated--then America will never elect another non-Democrat President.

Never.

What will happen is that the biggest cities--most of them on the coasts--will elect the President, and the vote of the rest of the country won't matter.

Democrats call the electoral system "undemocratic"--ironically, they're right, for two reasons.

First, the election of the President was never meant to be a democratic process. It was meant to be a republican process, eg one where the people elected representatives who then made the final decision by voting. The United States itself is not a democracy but a representative republic, a distinction which is lost on just about anyone educated by government schools.

In a democratic process, you simply count noses, and the side with the most noses wins. In a republican process, you count noses to select representative who then make the actual decision. Limbaugh likened democracy to three men in a room with two women; the men say, "Let's vote on whether or not the women should be raped." The vote is three to two, and the motion carries.

The electoral college was emplaced to ensure that every single vote cast in the election carried equal weight, whether that vote was cast in Philadephia or East Sticks, Nowhere--to ensure that each voter had an equal voice in the determination of who would be President.

Second, the electoral system is "undemocratic" because it doesn't always elect Democrats.

Make no mistake about it: eliminating the Electoral College has nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with ensuring that Republicans--or any other opposition the Democrats may face--cannot win the Presidency. In this way, the Democrats will ensure that they always control the White House and--by extension--who is appointed to the Supreme Court, thus ensuring that Democrats control two of the three branches of government in perpetuity.

* * *

Here we have Obama deliberately trying to side-step the law as set forth by members of his own party because the law interferes with his plans.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, how fascism gets entrenched. People look at Nazi Germany and wonder, "how on Earth did those people not know what was happening to them?" But the fact is that the people didn't know, that they trusted Hitler and took him at his word.

It's very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to see what should have happened in Germany in the 1930s to prevent the rise of National Socialism--but in fact the people on the ground at the time didn't have the luxury of turning the page to see what happened next, to say, "See, now this is where we made our mistakes"; they couldn't do that.

The same way we can't do that now.

Whatever may be going on in Washington, D.C., we don't have the benefit of knowing how it will all turn out. What we do have is the benefit of history, and seeing what things looked like in totalitarian countries before they turned totalitarian--what moves the dictator-to-be made, how he comported himself, and what actions he and his cronies udnertook to consolidate his power.

A disarmed populace is the key: citizens without weapons are serfs. Hitler disarmed his people. The Russian communists disarmed their people. China, Cuba, North Korea, and others prohibit the average "citizen" from owning weapons.

The elimination of the electoral college can be fixed. Gerrymandering can be fixed. Everything on the table right now can (and probably will) be fixed as long as the people retain the ultimate veto. The instant that the government disarms the citizenry, though, is the instant that the US becomes a totalitarian country.

I would hope that those of us who keep dear the 2nd Amendment would, at that point, rather be arrested en masse than actually give up our right to keep and bear arms--they can't put us all in jail!--but God knows what would happen.

What I do know is that at some point someone will try it, and he will probably be a Democrat.

The most important part of resisting disarmament is for gun owners to stick to their guns (pun intended) and force the government to arrest everyone...and when they can't, to sue because the government didn't provide "equal treatment under the law". There is a possible middle ground between rolling over for dictators and outright revolution and it falls, ironically enough, squarely in the province of "civil disobedience".

They can't put us all in jail.

* * *

Philadelphia cops acting badly. The fact that these cops systematically disabled the surveillance system, confistcated the cameras, and failed to properly document it indicates that something is up.

The store owner was wise to have a backup.

If these police were performing a lawful act, why disable the cameras? If you're not afraid of what the lawfully-placed security cameras will show? Why take them? And if they were in fact evidence that the store owner was breaking the law, why were they not properly documented as evidence?

What happened to the missing property and money? Why is $10,000 missing and only around $800 of it documented as "evidence"?

All of this was predicated on the store owner allegedly selling a legal product (there is no evidence he actually sold it) to wit small ziplock bags.

"The officers arrested Duran on misdemeanor charges of possessing and selling drug paraphernalia, specifically tiny ziplock bags," the article says.

The cops ruined a $15,000 security system because of a misdemeanor?

Whatever the hell small ziplock bags can be used for besides selling drugs, the fact is that selling the bags themselves should not constitute a crime. It's not like the guy was selling roach clips and bongs; he was selling small plastic bags. Hell, I like using small ziplock bags for storing tiny parts to things (screws, o-rings, what have you) and would love to be able to buy a box of them. But obviously I can't, because if having small ziplock bags is evidence that you're a drug dealer, I suppose I had better not.

This is "freedom"?

* * *

Someone was going to try to kill Obama. The would-be assassin is not a redneck, Republican, conservative, racist, or anything.

He is, in fact, a muslim.

Put out the hand, and they'll take it and stab you while they've got it pinned.

* * *

(Yes I did that on purpose.)

* * *

So it's April 7 now, and the current temperature is below freezing. We got several inches of snow starting around 8 PM Sunday night after a day of rain, and every time the wind blew there would be a series of thuds as snowy-ice aggregates fell off the tree branches.

One chunk hit me in the head as I was brushing snow off the Jeep. Ow. (Luckily for me that's my least vulnerable spot.) As bad as it was, it mostly melted yesterday. Spring snow doesn't usually last long.

Apparently Mount Redoubt in Alaska has continued to erupt. It's dumping a lot of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, and sulfur oxides are notorious for damping global temperatures. After Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 there was a 0.9° drop in global temperatures the following year. (I don't know how the Mount Redoubt eruption compares to that of Pinatubo in 1991.)

So we have an extended solar minimum coupled with a fairly active volcano--will this be a cool summer? Certainly getting snow in April is not unprecedented, and I'm not prepared to say that this year will be another "year without a summer", but this has been a bad winter; we've gotten a hell of a lot of precipitation and the average temperature had been just a few degrees colder, we would have been buried under feet of snow.

God knows what next year will be like.

* * *

Every time I think I have an idea for Xtranormal it flames out and comes off as being stupid. Maybe I'm just not cut out for this.

Still, I managed to do something fairly nonsensical, and the wooden delivery of the actors kind of makes it work. The interface needs some work, and it could stand to be a bit more intuitive, but it's still got some potential.

Sound is NSFW (one swear word):

Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments