I Know My Rights..."hic"

I weep for loss of the long-cherished liberties of our republic. It’s like you can’t avoid getting harassed by the police whenever you go driving a lawn mower down the road towing a train of ten shopping carts, each of which is filled with beer, held together by a hundred-foot extension cord. While drinking a beer.  What is this country coming to?via Ace of Spades HQ





How to change history via E-mail

By Norman E. Hooben

From time to time I run across an item that surely must fall in the category of fiction.  The article below certainly fills the bill for something invented by one's imagination.  The point of this story appears to be an attempt to re-write history.  Any student of history would immediately see the flaws in the story such as, "French casualties were the result of Naval gunfire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications..." or the statement concerning the non-governmental organization (NGO) Greenpeace which wasn't even around in 1944 (the time frame of the story); they evolved in the early 70's.  Actually the entire story is a farce...and a laughable one at that!  You can't fool me!  But if I read it others certainly must have read it too.  But how many of those others fall in the category of gullible or naive?  A friend once told me about an email he received concerning an issue that was entirely false yet he believed it because it sounded plausible.  I'm not sure where these stories originate but there seems to be a relationship to the powers that would have us believe that history did not happen the way we've previously learned.
How does one change history?  Well (and this was not said by Joseph Goebbels) if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. And if you get enough gullible and/or naive people especially younger children as Michelle Obama would like to indoctrinate (see video below) you have the beginning of change.

As for the story below some had it attributed to CNN or other left wing news outlets but I couldn't find anything that would implicate them.  There is however, an honest attempt by the Left and the Obama Administration to dramatically change history as we know it (see both videos, the one above this paragraph and the one at this link Muslims Discovered America ..."?" ). Now if you're a history buff you might just want to laugh (or cry) at the following:

Check out this E-mail

"NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of Naval gunfire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile, who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre Le Wimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon - a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that American soldiers had abused German prisoners. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans, at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

Dominique Strauss-Kahn...the IMF guy...

Impeach him, try him, hang him! No guts, no glory!

“Frankly, it is not up to the president whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up ‘no-fly’ zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution.” ~ Senator Rand Paul

We know that senator!  Just what are you going to do about it?  There's not enough intestinal foritude in the entire Congress (both the Senate and the House) to cough up a stale french fry never mind doing the job you're suppose to do...impeach him, try him, hang him! 

“It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist,”

It is alarming how casually you politicians talk about the Constitution as though you never took an oath to uphold it...  I guess Oliver Cromwell described you best...

"...ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money."  (See entire quote below)

 Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it... just as politicians talk about the Constitution and never do anything about enforcing it.  The country is going down the drain and the politicians are holding the plug.  No, its not all their fault, you idiots who did the voting can blame yourselves. (Now nobody going to read this because they don't like the truth of being called idiots.) ~ Norman E. Hooben


Source: Newsmax

Dems Rip Obama on Libya, Bring Up 'Impeachable Offense'
By: Jim Meyers and Dan Weil

Nine liberal Democrats have found something they agree with Republicans on: President Barack Obama’s authorization of military strikes on Libya without congressional consent is unconstitutional.

Those Democrats join GOP critics, including Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio even suggested that Obama’s action could be an “impeachable offense.”

Rand Paul

Sen. Paul points out that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to declare war.”

“It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist,” the freshman senator says in a statement on his congressional website.
“Frankly, it is not up to the president whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up ‘no-fly’ zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution.”

Obama has no authority to launch military attacks under the War Powers Resolution, Paul argues, because the United States has not been attacked.

“This is not our fight,” he adds. “If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.”

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, echoes Paul’s view. “The United States does not have a King's army," he said in a statement Monday. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution."

As for Sen. Lugar, he said in a congressional hearing last week, “If we are going to declare war against Libya, we ought to have a congressional declaration of war.”

And Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, tweeted on Sunday that the president is treating Congress as a “potted plant.”

Hard-Core Liberals

On the Democratic side, nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.

One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have congressional authorization. He has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story in an interview on Monday.

“I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

That doesn’t mean Obama should in fact be impeached and removed from office, Kucinich said. “That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

Kucinich now says he plans to offer up a measure that would defund U.S. efforts in Libya.

Another Democrat, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia — a former Marine and Navy secretary — complained on Monday on MSNBC that Congress has “been sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now, in terms of presidential authority, in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress.”

An Obama Flip-Flop

As an Illinois senator and presidential candidate, Obama himself strongly stated that the president can’t authorize military action without congressional approval unless it’s necessary to stop an imminent attack on the United States.

In a December 2007 interview, a Boston Globe reporter asked Obama under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

But apparently his view has changed. On Monday, Obama sent Congress a letter stating that as commander-in-chief, he has constitutional authority to authorize the Libya strikes, which were made in concert with our allies. The White House also noted that Obama met with congressional leaders to consult about the Libya situation Friday.

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, asked about Obama’s 2007 statement, said the administration “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support,” according to The New York Times.

But he insisted Obama could authorize the action on his own. “This is a limited — in terms of scope, duration and task — operation, which does fall in the president’s authorities,” Donilon said.

Most constitutional scholars agree that our founding fathers purposely separated the power to decide to start a war from the power to conduct it. But since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without going to Congress first.

The split between presidents’ actions over the last 60 years and the Constitution’s text makes it difficult to conclude whether the attack on Libya is lawful, constitutional experts tell The Times.

Budget Buster

On the budget front, the attacks on Libya could erase much of the budget cuts Republicans pushed through Congress recently.

GOP leaders say those reductions have totaled $285 million a day since March 1. But defense analysts tell The Hill that the Libya action could be draining the Defense Department of more than $100 million per day.

“We are working on cost estimates,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. For now, the Defense Department is “cash flowing the Libyan operations out of funding available under the [2011] continuing resolution.”
Sen. Lugar says his colleagues should discuss the cost issue.

“Congress has been squabbling for months over a budget to run the federal government for a fiscal year that is almost half over,” he said in a statement Monday. “We argue over where to cut $100 million here and there from programs many people like. So here comes an open-ended military action with no end game envisioned.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

___________________________

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are you yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go! ~ From Oliver Cromwell's speech on the dissolution of the Long Parliament given to the House of Commons 20 April 1653

More proof that the dollar is worthless...aah maybe not worthless, how 'bout wallpaper

Picture from Artifacts | Greenbacks at the Guggenheim

Hans-Peter Feldmann, above, with the installation of 100,000 one-dollar bills dressing the walls of the Guggenheim.

I guess this is next...

__________________________________________________________

Obama is anti business...Obama is destroying America...Obama the Marxist, Fanatical, Brown Shirt ~ Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce

"He (Obama) wants the price of gasoline to go to six or seven dollars a gallon."

"Hope isn't hiring. Hope isn't lowering the price of gasoline." 

Laura Ingraham: Marxist?  But you voted for him... Why did you vote for him? 

Harry Alford: "Because he was black. The worst mistake I ever made in my life."

So you are in full control...no one can manipulate you...right! Think again!

Dead Letter

A true story...

Is killing forbidden in Islam?

"Is killing forbidden in Islam? Only if you're a gullible idiot."

"...because what both of these idiots, Obama and our Muslim friend from Tennessee, quoted is not in the Quran"

Source: Planck's Constant

There are so many Muslim deceptions and lies that I have made a category called Islamic Myths specifically to contain them. One of those lies is that the Quran condemns killing.

Infidels are easily deceived when Muslims quote Sura 5:32 - "... whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.." In fact, our own President quoted this very line in his speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009.
A reader from Tennessee calling himself "Light" left this comment in response to my article Only Arabs Can Truly Be Muslims:

is not that people dont understand the quarn,but are not willing to read it.When you read it, it speacifly says nothing negative that you hear from the media,or from others.For example about killing,it speciafly states if you intentionaly kill somone then it is like killing the whole of humanity so killing of any sort disqualifies you from islam and people who commite this error are not ignorent about islam but are catorgorized as islam just becuase of where they are from.

Now either he is purposely being deceptive or he may be an ignorant Muslim who has never actually read the Quran and simply repeats what others tell him is in the Quran because what both of these idiots, Obama and our Muslim friend from Tennesse, quoted is not in the Quran.
Here is what the Quran actually says at Sura 5:32:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

Even a casual reader will note that this injunction applies only to the “Children of Israel,” which is to say, the Jews. This is not meant for nor does it apply to Muslims.
This verse allows Jews to kill someone if that person is a murderer or if that person has spread mischief in the land, such as adultery, fornication, waylaying, etc. It should be noted that Obama was wrong, the word "innocent" is nowhere in that verse.
And how should those who spread mischief be punished? What Muslims will not quote to infidels is the very next verse, 5:33:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Ah, no wonder Muslims omit the next verse, it is a prescription for violence and savage butchery. Fornicators, adulterers, thieves, and others are to be killed or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides. Now I want you to think about that last part. Allah does not want your right hand and foot to be cut off, or your left hand and foot, but opposite sides. Left hand and right foot or right hand and left foot. The God of Islam wants mischief-makers to suffer lop-sided. Is there anything more cruel and barbaric than Islam?

Is killing forbidden in Islam? Only if you're a gullible idiot.

For more interesting reading about Islam click here Planck's Constant

Scare Tactics 101...leave your carbon footprints at the door

Note: See important Update below.

 

Recently I attended a graduation ceremony where all the usual speeches were about all the usual things professors talk to all their usual departing students...but there was one thing that was a bit unusal.  The last guy standing (lets call him professor Know Nothing) at the podium spewed forth a bunch of verbiage that for a moment there I thought he was trying to be inspirational.  That is, until professor Know Nothing dipped into his politcal indoctrination and told the graduating class (imagine that, he told them as if it were some scientific fact!) that they should be concerned about what kind of carbon footprint we leave behind.  Well fortunately the students were anxious to get on with their celebration lunches and parties and proceeded to march out of the auditorium...(Does marching leave carbon footprints?) 
All this talk about carbon footprints and climate change has nothing whatsoever to do with science or anything close to the definition of the word, "fact".  The scare mongers who invented these scare tactics all originated with the New World Order clan...most notably, the United Nations.  The United Nations is in the climate change game for one and only one reason...money! period!  Of course you would have to study a little science especially that field of expertise called, political science in order to find the real facts of the matter.  The UN has been playing this game since it's founding...and long before that, indoctrination publications such as Time magazine got in the game early (and you thought Time was a news magazine...they went into publication for one and only one reason, to indoctrinate!)
Meanwhile, I could go on but professor Know Nothing needs to decide where he'll leave his carbon footprint.  Shall it be in the snow and ice?  Or the scorched earth?  Here's a couple of videos to help him make up his mind.  ~  Norman E. Hooben June 1, 2011
video 1 ↓                                                                                        video 2 ↓

 

Update (October 2014): ...simply more proof that I'm right, they're wrong, end of story!

Source: The Register

Antarctic sea ice at ALL TIME RECORD HIGH: 'We have more to learn' - scientist

Four-deviations-above-average figures defy climate models

by Lewis Page 9 October 2014

 

The climate science community has confessed itself baffled yet again by another all-time record area of sea covered by ice around Antarctica (emphasis mine, NEH).
"What we're learning is, we have more to learn," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, announcing the latest annual sea ice maximum for the austral continent. According to the NSIDC:

Sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent reached its maximum extent on September 22 at 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). This is 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average extent, which is nearly four standard deviations above average. Antarctic sea ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the month of September. This new record extent follows consecutive record winter maximum extents in 2012 and 2013. The reasons for this recent rapid growth are not clear. Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014.

Climate scientists have been puzzled by the behaviour of the southern ice for many years now. The most commonly used models say that its steady growth should not be happening in a warming world (though the warming of the world is also in doubt, as air temperatures have been steady for the last fifteen years or more - and it turns out that deep ocean temperatures are not increasing either, leaving the "mystery" of the apparent end of global warming "unsolved").
This failure of reality to match up with climate modelling has, as some eminent climate scientists have noted, had the effect of "limiting confidence in the predictions" of severe warming and associated disasters this century.
Meanwhile at the other end of the planet the Arctic sea ice has covered lesser areas in recent times. The lowest Arctic area seen in the era of satellite measurements was in 2012, but the three consecutive record-high Antarctic maxima of 2012, 2013 and now 2014 have resulted in global sea ice levels this year and last year coming out pretty much normal. ®



 

_______________________

The Weather...

"It must be watched, of course, but it is well to remember that Nature has a way of her own in adjusting these matters..." ~ Mark Twain