Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh... they criticize....Democrats

I was reading an article today about how "if you listen to Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh, you'll think the president is doing a lousy job," but if you listen to anybody else, you'll think he's doing a great job.

There were several comments appended to this article, and more than one of them said, "The reason why Obama is getting all this criticism is because Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh are racist." But they went further. "Everyone who criticizes Obama is racist."

What these people don't seem to realize is that Obama is not being criticized as a man. (Unlike his wife, of course - who is insulted regularly about her looks and the way she dresses. But that's not racist either. That's just the way men treat women, regardless of what field they are in.)

He's being critizied on the issues. Let me repeat, ON THE ISSUES.

Listen to any of Limbaugh's programs and he cites SPECIFIC things Obama has done that are bad for the country. He, like Hannity and Beck and Savage, also cite SPECIFIC things that white folks do, like Robert Gibbs, Nancy Pelosi, Napolitano, ya da ya da. THey go after everybody who is not a democrat, regardless of race.

To state categorically - to believe categorically - that the ONLY reason why most Republicans and most Independents are tired of Obama is because he's black is just plain stupid.

All Gall: The Stephen Baldwin Restoration Project

http://www.restorestephenbaldwin.org/

What should charity, and welfare, be designed to do? It should be designed to help people out temporarily... to give people in need a breathing space while they find a job to get back on their own two feet.

It should not be something that is given to thousands of people, from their birth to death - in other words all their lives. Why not? Because if you pay people to sit on their butts and do nothing... they'll sit on their butts and do nothing. Except they have access to TVs, and will be able to see people - who actually work - buying things that they can't afford to buy. But since they have no idea of the concept of working, all they can think to do is steal what they want, or "get rich quick" schemes like selling drugs, and so on.

That's what's happening in Haiti, for example. So many people over there are getting free food and medical care that actual Haitian farmers, who have food to sell, can't sell it. People who were not hurt in the earthquake have moved into the tent cities just so they can get the free medical care.

In the States? We've had a welfare class for four generations now. Welfare has destroyed the black family - women can make more money with a dozen kids and no man in the picture. (And, of course, Latino and white women are following suit, now. Whether it's because of the destruction of morals of the whole populace, or a desire to get on the gravy train, I'll leave it for you to decide.)

So now we come to Steve Baldwin. Baldwin is "one of the Baldwin brothers." A successful movie star, he made more money on a single picture than you or I will make in a lifetime.

But, a few years ago he had a setback and had to declare bankruptcy. Much like thousands of people who make thousands of dollars a year instead of millions.

Now, there is a website out there, proclaiming Stephen Baldwin a born again Christian, and requesting donations to help restore him to the luxurious life he once knew.

The website itself is very professionally done, and must have cost a few thousand dollars to create, I'd wager.

And I'm thinking, what is the gall of this man, and the gall of these religious types who have put up this site, to ask that avererage people, like you and me, donate our hard-earned money to help this man.... who is not in a wheelchair, does not have any kind of disease to prevent him from working, does not have any children with dehablitating diseases that have sucked all his money away.... why should we donate money to help him live a life of luxury???

I checked the Internet Movie Database yesterday. Baldwin is still working - he made three movies in 2010, and the year is not even half over. Even if they are just cameos... an actor of his stature will get a minimum of $100,000 for that cameo. That's how much Hollywood pays big-name stars, even for cameos.

More than that, as I said, this man is not physically or mentally disabled in any way. He is able to get a job with which he can capitalize on his fame, selling cars for an Obamacar company, for example. Getting speaking fees for groups that want to hear his Born Again message.

There is no reason why this man cannot provide for himself and his family on his own. And if he can't, can't some of his brothers help him out? Can't his wife go to work?

The very idea that this able-bodied man, still in the prime of life, is looking to solicit donations..not for a ministry, not for a worthy cause... but for himself to get back into the luxurious life... it is obscene. He should be ashamed of himself, the religious folks who put together the website should be ashamed of themselves, and anyone who donates to this site, instead of sending it to some much more reputable charity, should be ashamed of themselves!

Just the Facts, Please

The only facts that are known about the last hour and a half of Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax life is that someone stabbed him, and that he lay on a New York street, dying, while over 20 people walked past him and did not bother to call 9-1-1-.

Those are the only facts.

Yet the man is being called a hero.

Do not misunderstand me. I hope he was a hero. There's no reason why he, or any homeless person/illegal alien, couldn't act just as heroically as a citizen of this country. I'm not trying to imply otherwise.

I'm just saying that there are no facts, at this point, one way or the other, to prove what he was, and yet he is being trumpeted as a hero without any facts at all.

I've seen the surveillance video in question, probably we all have.



From this, it is impossible to tell what happened. Perhaps the "attacker" of the woman was actually someone who knew the woman. They stop to talk, the homeless guy stops them and asks for money, the attacker (in this case, really an attacker) overreacts and stabs him, then runs away.

(Of course, perhaps the video shows more than what is shown here, and the actual stabbing has been edited out. The vidoe does seem like it has been edited at that point.)

I saw nothing in the video to suggest what Yale-Tax was doing before he was stabbed...being a hero or asking for money.

Obviously, if he was panhandling he didn't deserve to be stabbed, either. It just disturbs me that on the basis of no evidence at all, except for the fact that he died, the man is being hailed as a hero.

Obviously, the people who let him lie where he was without lifting a finger to call 911 are scum, as is the woman who, whether victim or innocent bystander, is as well. She at least would have called 911, one would have thought, always assuming she had a cell-phone.

Now, anyone want to take bets that Law and Order will be doing a story shortly, featuring this tragic incident as a jumping off point?

Want to Fish? Forget about it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

I can see banning fishiing for sailfish, tuna, and large fish of that nature. But to tell people they can't fish for sunnies, crappies, and so on... it's obscene. And its unAmerican. (But you may be sure Native American tribes will get to keep their rights to fish.)

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

AP/Luis M. Alvarez
One sign at the United We Fish rally at the Capital summed up the feelings of recreational and commercial fishermen. This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

That's a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.

"When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario," said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.

"Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.

"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."


PHOTO GALLERY

Fisheries In Danger
Consequently, unless anglers speak up and convince their Congressional representatives to stop this bureaucratic freight train, it appears that the task force will issue a final report for "marine spatial planning" by late March, with President Barack Obama then issuing an Executive Order to implement its recommendations — whatever they may be.

Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.

Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled "Transition Green" shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.

Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced "Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy." This document makes repeated references to "overfishing," but doesn't once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias by playing fast and loose with "facts," in attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.

That same tunnel vision, in which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource, has persisted with the task force, despite protests by the angling industry.

As more evidence of collusion, the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force's recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February. Fishing advocates had no idea that this was coming.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, the New York Times reported on Feb. 12 that "President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."

Click here for archiveMorlock fears that "what we're seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There's no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.

"Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It's all just an excuse to put us off the water."

In the wake of the task force's framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition against voiced their concerns to the administration.

"Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic," said CSF President Jeff Crane.

Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, "There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.

"Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable."

This is not the only access issue threatening the public's right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.

"With what's being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans," he said. "Under the guise of 'marine spatial planning' entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.

"Every angler needs to be aware because if it's not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.

"We have one of the largest voting blocks in the country and we need to use it. We must not sit idly by."

Now, admittedly, this isn't quite as ridiculous as letting a whole series of home go to wrack and ruin because to fix them would harm the habitat of a snail - a snail - but it's up there.

Tea-partyers Must Learn From the Plight of the American Indian

The above cartoon was written by someone named Lalo Alcaraz. I don't know what paper it appears in, I read it at Yahoo's comics page.

The inference of the comic is, I think, that the Tea Partyers have no right to whine and cry about "wanting their country back" because they're hypocrites - and because "they" stole this country from the Indians.

I submit that there should be a different interpretation. The plight of the American Indian - confined to reservations (now) by their own choosing, 80% unemployment on some reservations, alcoholism rife, and the loss of their particular patch of country (for various tribes of Indians were scattered throughout the North American continent) - is one that all Americans need to look at and understand.

Native Americans lost their land for one reason - they did not secure their borders. Caucasians - Spanish and French first, then the English, came in and took over - and they did it by force. The various Indian tribes hated each other and would not band together to fight off the enemy. So, they lost their country.

Now, is it hypocritical [as the cartoon tries to imply] for Americans today - perhaps ancestors of those original "illegal immigrants" - to be angry as they see their country, the country of the last 200 years, the United States of America, one that encompasses the entire country and has laws that encompass the entire country - being taken over by a new wave of illegal immigrants? Illegals who are taking over not by force, but by economic pressure and the forces of liberalism?

I submit that today's Americans - a melting pot of every region's people that has ever come here - have no reason to feel guilty for what their ancestors did 200 years ago, when life was extremely different to what it is today. (And when millions and millions of dollars have been paid out in re-payment of the land, if not the lifestyle, which is gone forever, and just needs to be accepted. Time to move on.)

But one lesson remains the same.

The Indians lost their culture, their language and their ways because they could not secure their borders. The "illegal immigrants" of that time, if you want to call them that, took that all away by force.

The culture and country that replaced it was one where everyone spoke English, immigrants who came here melted into the pot and also spoke English. (Yes, Asians and blacks who could not melt had hard times, but I'm trying to make a point here. At least the Asians learned how to speak English and we don't have an Asionics. And today they are very successful - although losing ground now that more and more Asians of the illegal variety are coming in....and we're getting gangs and so forth.

The culture of the United States, honed over 200 years, the language of the United States - English - all of it are in danger of being destroyed by a new invasion.

If we (Americans of all races, creeds and colors with perhaps two things holding us together - a knowledge of English and a belief that we should all stand on our own two feet and make our way in the world) do not want to see our culture destroyed, we need to stop illegal immigration now.

Don't misunderstand me. It only makes sense for people to want to come to the US, the greatest country in the world. Who could begrudge people that?

But it's all about economics. We're a bankrupt country as it is - we simply don't have the money to keep putting our own citizens on welfare, let alone illegal immigrants. At one point people were ashamed to be on welfare (much as women were ashamed to be unwed mothers [as opposed to divorced mothers]), now a majority of people go on welfare as a matter of course and don't bother to fight their way off it. And why should they, if that welfare will always be there - which is what the Democrats want. As for unwed mothers, nowadays that's a badge of honor. Not loveable enough to get married, but at least a guy wanted to sleep with me, and see, I have proof, here's my kid. Now, where's my welfare check?

Immigrants should come to this country legal, in batches so that they can be integrated into our culture.

Anything else is sheer lunacy, like continuing to pour water into a bucket that's already full.

FYI, It's Aq-kwigh-nus, not ack-kwee-nus

George Bush has long been mocked by people as someone who mispronounced the world nuclear. One must ask oneself, does he really misprounce it, or does he use the pronunciation of the region in which he was born and raised?

Different regions of a country (but since I live in the US I'll talk about the US) have different pronunciations for the same words.

For example, I'm a northerner living in Norfolk, Virgina, and I pronounce it Nor-folk -- the way it should be pronounced. But people who were born and bred here pronounce it Nor-fuck (please, childish minds, don't snigger over my use of the f-word there. It isn't the f-word, it's how they pronounce Norfolk.)

However, there are some words that, if you know the rules of grammar, can only be pronounced one way.

Such a word is corpsman. Yes, there's a P in it, and kids reading that word may be forgiven for pronouning that P. But they will be told (if their teachers are allowed to teach) that the p is silent and so the proper pronunciation is coreman. Indeed, I'm sure that as a kid I pronounced it corpse-man myself, until someone - probably my brother - corrected me and said, no, it's coreman.

Apparently, President Obama had no teacher and no brother to tell him how to pronounce that word. And so he ends up embarrasing himself (Of course, the Dems won't mention it, but the Republicans will never let it go, much as the opposite happened with Bush.)

But this brings up a larger issue, which is why my post is entitled FYI, It's Aq-kwigh-nus, not ack-kwee-nus.

We've just had first hand evidence of why it is important for someone who mispronounces a word to be corrected! That person may never use that word again, or he may be standing up in front of 10,000 people and mispronounce it in front of them and all the world.

I have a college-level education, but I acquired it on my own, by systematic reading in subjects that interested me. In my early 20s, I met a couple who were quite erudite. I visited their house once, looked over their library, and saw that they had books by Thomas Aquinas. Now, I had read much of this man, but I'd never heard his name pronounced, so I pronounced it Ack-kwee-nus.

My friend, a woman, corrected me. "Ac-kwigh-nus." Her husband immediately reproved her for correcting me - this despite the fact that it was just the three of us! I immediately said, "No, thanks for the correction. I'm glad to have learned the proper way to pronounce it."

Now, in my case, I've never again had the change to use the name Thomas Aquinas in conversation, but if I had, I know I wouldn't have mispronounced it.

Look, on the other hand, at the dicussions (if they can be called that) that go on in message boards. People mispelling words, using improper grammar, etc. Now, obviously, some people correct their grammar and spelling not in an effort to teach, but in an effort to put down...but that doesn't change the fact that people who spell incorrectly, or use the wrong grammar, should - gently - be corrected.

Otherwise, they may make the same mistake in a letter to a potential employer, for example. Now, that may be stretching it...the real reason they should be corrected is because people should know the right spelling, the right grammar. People in their twenties and upwards who do not know correct grammar and word usage should be ashamed of themselves, because it shows they have no interest in knowledge and increasing their knowledge - and we all of us need to increase our knowledge of the world, every day of our lives.

Now, some intelligent and articulate people are not good spellers. I grant you that. I don't understand how that can be... but I know that it is so. I've met several people who are not only well educated but smart enough to understand and apply what they've learned (the two don't necessarily go together), but they can't spell for toffee. But, they're smart enough to have a secretary or a spell-checker verify their work.

It is sad, therefore, that should someone mispronounce a word or mispell a word, people are not allowed to correct them, for fear of hurting their feelings. (Just for one example, teachers can't use red ink to correct papers anymore, it makes students feel bad! Students can't grade each other's papers any more... it makes a student feel bad if someone else knows he missed every single question. And rather than being spurred on to do better work in fture, better that he just not be humiliated to begin with, eh?)

Dumbing down of the world....

Exactly how much help does Haiti need?

President Obama has promised a $100 million relief effort. Several countries around the world are also promising help.

So why do we Americans have to do anything else? It is our tax money that is part of that $100 million relief effort.

If our government is helping the Haitians, as are the governments of several other countries, again, why does the "little person" have to do anything (except continue to pay our taxes, of course.)

I'm not saying that the little person shouldn't help out people in need, I'm saying that the government has already got this under control. (And of course, much hay will be made out of how efficiently Obama is reacting to this as opposed to how Bush handled Katrina, but then, Obama had the Katrina debacle to learn from.)

The reason I bring this up is because of a Gossip website called Celbrity-Gossip.net.

If you read the headline, it's Tiger Woods: $3 Million for Haiti? If you read the first sentence, you get "People all over the world are scrambling to help the rescue effort in earthquake-torn Haiti, and Tiger Woods may be joining the cause."

But if you read the entire article, you find out that the whole thing is just made up. A hip-hop mogul is going to ask Tiger Woods to donate $3 million. He's going to do this tomorrow. (Does this mean this guy actually knows where Woods is? Or is he just going to ask Woods people?)

Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons told press, “Tiger is working on sending a mobile hospital with 50 EMTs to go set up a triage. I am just asking for his heart and his hand. Just to meet the needs of the people.”

Simmons continued, “I am just reaching out to him as a human. I am waiting to have the conversation with Tiger tomorrow morning. I am hopeful that it is a yes.”

So what this Simmons guy says in the first para is that Tiger is doing this, the second paragraph is that he's going to ask Tiger to do this tomorrow.

Why is this even being reported. Why is Simmons going to the press and saying he's going to ask Tiger for money?

Well, it's a form of blackmail. You tell the press you're going to ask Tiger for money, if Tiger says no he'll come across as even worse of a jerk than he is now. But consider.... Tiger is losing endorsements left right and center...so he has no new money coming in. His wife is going to take him for half of the money he has now.

A man in such straits can't afford to send $3 million to Haiti, especially when, as stated before, the US government is already committed to spending $100 million!

All these people who are saying they're going to donate a million - the MLB, probably soon the NFL and NBA - blackmailed into it, I"m sure - will go for good PR, but what's the point. HOw much money over $100 mil do the Haitians need? And why not wait until that $100 mil is spent before you donate, so you can make sure your money is going to Haiti and not to some other part of the world that whatever charity you're giving to, will divert funds.