If you watched the Five tonight and saw the 2nd section, then you know the topic of conversation was about the renewing of the Patriot Act.
For the first time I agreed with Eric Bowling and not Greg Gutfeld. Eric Bowling and Geraldo Rivera stood against renewing it, and Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, and Kimberly Guilfoyle stood for renewing it.
The argument for renewing it is that it helps fight terror. It uses data-mining to gather statistics in order to find terrorists.
The argument against renewing it is that it is a violation of our privacy rights. That the information "mined" could be used in instances other than catching terrorists.
Neither side really has a significant foundation:
AGAINST: The data-mining hasn't stopped any terrorist activities.
FOR: You can't prove that.
FOR: They are not reading your e-mails.
AGAINST: You can't prove that.
The other argument FOR the Patriot Act is "How else will you find terrorists?" Which poses an interesting question, but not an insolvable question. The FORs act as if the Patriot Act is the only way to find terrorists. And yet technology today is overwhelming and fascinating. Doesn't ISIS have a facebook page? and a twitter account? How about targeting anyone who connects to those? any repeat viewers? And that's just ONE idea.
AGAINST says "Use Profiling." Let's be clear, "profiling" IS NOT EVIL. The idea of profiling is not a bad thing; yes, it can be abused. But if you have ever watched a crime investigation show, then you have seen how they bring in profilers to profile the extreme criminals (like serial killers). The problem arises when one over-simplifies profiling. When one says, "Oh the terrorists are extremist muslims? Then we should target all muslims." That's insane. It would be like a criminal profiler coming in and saying, "Oh, a bunch of women were killed? Then it must be a man. Target all men." Accurate, intelligent profiling would absolutely work.
The real question is "How much freedom are you willing to give up for your safety?"
Freedom is having choice. Although it is important to remember that that includes choosing the wrong thing as well. The opportunity to make a good choice or a bad choice. Removing choice is not just anti-freedom, it's fascism. Privacy protects our choices. When a person or entity knows our individual secrets, he/she/it/they can manipulate us (whether that's targeted advertising or wrongful arrests). The Patriot Act is an invasion of privacy, but by how much.....
I always recommend less regulations, because it is a slippery slope that is rarely reversed.
Consider this: Patriot Act ends up being used to catch a serial killer. Yay! It becomes a regular tool in catching serial killers. Yay! Then it is used to catch murderers as well. Yay! Then it is used to catch thieves. Yay. Then it is used to catch people who commit identity fraud. yay. Then it is used to catch people who speed. yay? Then it is used to catch you.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Friday, April 3, 2015
HRC Super Volunteers - You're Words are Sad, Pathetic, and Delusional
If you haven't heard the HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton) Super Volunteers made a statement to the press:
"We will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism" [You can no longer use these words to describe Hillary Clinton] "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch".
Washington Post Article
SAD: Because it attempts to stop any form of criticism of Hillary Clinton. Is the only way Hillary will win, if there is no criticism of her actions, past or present? Criticism has been the foundation of political elections. Too often such criticism is poorly made or is deliberately designed to sabotage the other candidate, because of how inaccurate such statements are, like Harry Reid's statement about how Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes in 10 years (wholly unfounded, but was affective, as Harry Reid proudly asserts). But when such criticisms are bipartisan, it often, but not always, balances out. However if one candidate is criticized, but the other is not, then the balance is lost.
PATHETIC: Because a politically motivated group (HRC Super Volunteers) is attempting to stifle the presses' first amendment right. They are attempting to use fear in order to control the flow of information. The first amendment may be written to protect the media and individuals from the government, but the concept holds true to other individuals as well. Meaning that by attempting to control the flow of information by the media, the HRC Super Volunteers are demonstrating a completely un-American view, a non-patriotic view. These people do not believe in the American system, or even, for that matter, in Hillary Clinton, since they do not believe that she can weather this criticism.
DELUSIONAL: Because the HRC Super Volunteers' banned words are banned under the premise that they are coded sexism. Clearly they added the word "coded", because none of these words (or in fact phrases) are inherently sexist, in any way. By using the word "coded", they are trying to say that when the media uses one of these words, they are using it because they are sexist. The first presumption by them is that ALL media comes from a sexist patriarchal point of view. Which means they are ignoring ALL the WOMEN who are in the media, claiming that they have no voice or opinion in what is said/reported on Hillary Clinton: that sounds pretty freakin' sexist to me. BUT the second presumption is that none of these words are true, that none of these words accurately describe Hillary Clinton, that, in fact, Hillary Clinton is NOT "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch". What if they were true? What if they were reported because there is factual evidence to support such a criticism? Is it suddenly labeled sexism? Does that mean that facts are less important than opinions?
A couple of examples:
Secretive: Hillary Clinton used a personal server to store her e-mail, instead of using the government e-mail account she was given. When asked to hand over her e-mails, for archiving, she had someone review all the e-mails on the server, and hand over only a few. She then deleted all the other e-mails off the server. This is the opposite of being transparent; there is the possibility of information that we ought to know or ought to have archived, that we will never know about. She kept her e-mails secret, as if she were...
Will Do Anything To Win: Does anyone remember the Democratic Primary for the 2008 Presidential Election? She bashed Obama left and right; she threw so much "mud" in the primary that the Republicans had nothing left to throw at Obama. And then when she lost the presidential nomination...what did she do? She met with Obama, in order to ask to be his vice-president. I will never forgive her for such "ambitious," "calculating," "over confident," "entitled" behaviour.
Is it just me or are the biggest supporters of Hillary For President completely insane?
5 Reasons for Hillary to Run
PS Don't think just because you trick a bunch of little girls into promoting Hillary for president with half-truths that I'll care.
"We will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism" [You can no longer use these words to describe Hillary Clinton] "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch".
Washington Post Article
SAD: Because it attempts to stop any form of criticism of Hillary Clinton. Is the only way Hillary will win, if there is no criticism of her actions, past or present? Criticism has been the foundation of political elections. Too often such criticism is poorly made or is deliberately designed to sabotage the other candidate, because of how inaccurate such statements are, like Harry Reid's statement about how Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes in 10 years (wholly unfounded, but was affective, as Harry Reid proudly asserts). But when such criticisms are bipartisan, it often, but not always, balances out. However if one candidate is criticized, but the other is not, then the balance is lost.
PATHETIC: Because a politically motivated group (HRC Super Volunteers) is attempting to stifle the presses' first amendment right. They are attempting to use fear in order to control the flow of information. The first amendment may be written to protect the media and individuals from the government, but the concept holds true to other individuals as well. Meaning that by attempting to control the flow of information by the media, the HRC Super Volunteers are demonstrating a completely un-American view, a non-patriotic view. These people do not believe in the American system, or even, for that matter, in Hillary Clinton, since they do not believe that she can weather this criticism.
DELUSIONAL: Because the HRC Super Volunteers' banned words are banned under the premise that they are coded sexism. Clearly they added the word "coded", because none of these words (or in fact phrases) are inherently sexist, in any way. By using the word "coded", they are trying to say that when the media uses one of these words, they are using it because they are sexist. The first presumption by them is that ALL media comes from a sexist patriarchal point of view. Which means they are ignoring ALL the WOMEN who are in the media, claiming that they have no voice or opinion in what is said/reported on Hillary Clinton: that sounds pretty freakin' sexist to me. BUT the second presumption is that none of these words are true, that none of these words accurately describe Hillary Clinton, that, in fact, Hillary Clinton is NOT "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch". What if they were true? What if they were reported because there is factual evidence to support such a criticism? Is it suddenly labeled sexism? Does that mean that facts are less important than opinions?
A couple of examples:
Secretive: Hillary Clinton used a personal server to store her e-mail, instead of using the government e-mail account she was given. When asked to hand over her e-mails, for archiving, she had someone review all the e-mails on the server, and hand over only a few. She then deleted all the other e-mails off the server. This is the opposite of being transparent; there is the possibility of information that we ought to know or ought to have archived, that we will never know about. She kept her e-mails secret, as if she were...
Will Do Anything To Win: Does anyone remember the Democratic Primary for the 2008 Presidential Election? She bashed Obama left and right; she threw so much "mud" in the primary that the Republicans had nothing left to throw at Obama. And then when she lost the presidential nomination...what did she do? She met with Obama, in order to ask to be his vice-president. I will never forgive her for such "ambitious," "calculating," "over confident," "entitled" behaviour.
Is it just me or are the biggest supporters of Hillary For President completely insane?
5 Reasons for Hillary to Run
PS Don't think just because you trick a bunch of little girls into promoting Hillary for president with half-truths that I'll care.
War with Iran
War with Iran seems inevitable.
The question we have to ask ourselves is do we prefer:
War with Iran
or
Nuclear War with Iran
The question we have to ask ourselves is do we prefer:
War with Iran
or
Nuclear War with Iran
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Indiana Religious Freedom Law: The Left Needs to Check Themselves, Before They Chick-Ity-Wreck Themselves
SO.....it's ok for the government to discriminate against individuals/private businesses, but it's not ok for an individual to discriminate against other individuals....that about right?
Psychos.
Obviously the government (well the US government) should not be creating any laws that discriminate against anyone as it oppresses their freedom. AND the US Government is supposed to be about protecting freedom.
INCLUDING the freedom to like/dislike/or treat (as individuals, which a private business is an extension of) others how their beliefs dictate.
I, personally, support gay marriage because this is the land of freedom. IF your particular institution (speaking mostly to churches here) do not want to endorse gay marriage...Great! That's your prerogative. But the government shouldn't get involved in such decisions.
This whole backlash against the Indiana Governor and the Indiana law are either full of bigotry or are too simplified to be dealing with the actual issue. We all know that laws are written as convoluted as possible, so is there a possibility that there are elements to this law, nuances perhaps, that do more than I am suggesting here? Possibly, but I'll need an attorney for that (even the politicians can't tell you for sure).
SO, Left? Stop looking like a bunch of bigots who don't like it when you are treated poorly...hell, I've been treated poorly much of my life, but you don't see me whining like a little [female dog], or even abusing a capitalist website for political means, or even wanting everything that "I think" I deserve.
Thank god this will result in a Conservative President.
Psychos.
Obviously the government (well the US government) should not be creating any laws that discriminate against anyone as it oppresses their freedom. AND the US Government is supposed to be about protecting freedom.
INCLUDING the freedom to like/dislike/or treat (as individuals, which a private business is an extension of) others how their beliefs dictate.
I, personally, support gay marriage because this is the land of freedom. IF your particular institution (speaking mostly to churches here) do not want to endorse gay marriage...Great! That's your prerogative. But the government shouldn't get involved in such decisions.
This whole backlash against the Indiana Governor and the Indiana law are either full of bigotry or are too simplified to be dealing with the actual issue. We all know that laws are written as convoluted as possible, so is there a possibility that there are elements to this law, nuances perhaps, that do more than I am suggesting here? Possibly, but I'll need an attorney for that (even the politicians can't tell you for sure).
SO, Left? Stop looking like a bunch of bigots who don't like it when you are treated poorly...hell, I've been treated poorly much of my life, but you don't see me whining like a little [female dog], or even abusing a capitalist website for political means, or even wanting everything that "I think" I deserve.
Thank god this will result in a Conservative President.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Hillary Clinton is a Sexist
Hillary Clinton wants you to vote for her because she is a woman, not because she is the best candidate.
Treating a person differently based upon his/her sex is sexism.
"Don't you someday want to see a woman president of the United States of America."
-Hillary Clinton
Personally, I just want a president who actually cares about this nation, whose first priority is to its citizens, who cares more about our nation being an honorable strong leader in world politics; certainly not someone who just wants to be remembered in the annals of the United States of America.
Treating a person differently based upon his/her sex is sexism.
"Don't you someday want to see a woman president of the United States of America."
-Hillary Clinton
Personally, I just want a president who actually cares about this nation, whose first priority is to its citizens, who cares more about our nation being an honorable strong leader in world politics; certainly not someone who just wants to be remembered in the annals of the United States of America.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
The Five on Fox News - 2/26/2015: ISIS - Will Jobs solve the problem? ......I mean, seriously....
On The Five today, there was a debate regarding whether ISIS people are poor, needing jobs or whether they are middle class, well-educated people.
It is important to remember that within any structure there are the upper echelon and the lower ranks. When it comes to ISIS, the upper echelon like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (their Caliph), who has a BA, MA and a PhD in Islamic Studies, and Jihadi John (Mohammed Emwazi), who comes from the middle class and received a computer programming degree from University of Westminster, are well-educated, purposeful megalomaniacs. These are people who are intelligent enough to create effective propaganda and navigate through today's technological advances (social media in particular). While the lower ranks consist of people who are primarily motivated, to join ISIS, by ideology. Juan Williams is correct (probably) in asserting that these are lost souls. Whether they are middle class or not, they are people looking for purpose and meaning in life, which so many of us struggle with. And like many of us, they are finding it through religion. Unfortunately the religion that ISIS promotes is not just antisocial, but truly grotesque to the human race. It is a "religion" that promotes genocide, murder, and ultimately ego-centric selfishness (yeah, I know that's redundant, but the emphasis is necessary, as the "religion" excludes the rights AND the existence of other human beings).
AGAIN, the only effective (non-military) way to "combat" this "religion"/ideology, aka propaganda, is with counter-propaganda. the most effective of which would be to denounce ISIS' interpretation of Islam. The first step would be to gather other Muslim leaders and countries to stand in opposition of ISIS and their beliefs. Without their support, there will always be a level of legitimacy to ISIS' claims. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if such leaders and nations were holding their tongues, just to see if ISIS can pull off a Worldwide Caliphate.
The second step would be to use Islam against them. By delving into the Islamic religion and finding contradictory ideas, philosophies, verses, and quotes, we can create a rift between the ISIS propaganda and the true meaning of being a Muslim. Then each recruit will be rejecting Islam in favor for ISIS gibberish. So that those that join ISIS will, in fact, garner NO benefits from their suicidal and violent actions. There will be no "72 virgins" waiting for them when they die; there will be no place in Heaven for them; there will only be fire and damnation.
Unfortunately all of this goes back to Marie Harf and her poor statements, which I assume, reflect the thoughts from the White House. The comments she made were so naive and ignorant, that I, as a proud United States of America citizen, am embarrassed.
It is important to remember that within any structure there are the upper echelon and the lower ranks. When it comes to ISIS, the upper echelon like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (their Caliph), who has a BA, MA and a PhD in Islamic Studies, and Jihadi John (Mohammed Emwazi), who comes from the middle class and received a computer programming degree from University of Westminster, are well-educated, purposeful megalomaniacs. These are people who are intelligent enough to create effective propaganda and navigate through today's technological advances (social media in particular). While the lower ranks consist of people who are primarily motivated, to join ISIS, by ideology. Juan Williams is correct (probably) in asserting that these are lost souls. Whether they are middle class or not, they are people looking for purpose and meaning in life, which so many of us struggle with. And like many of us, they are finding it through religion. Unfortunately the religion that ISIS promotes is not just antisocial, but truly grotesque to the human race. It is a "religion" that promotes genocide, murder, and ultimately ego-centric selfishness (yeah, I know that's redundant, but the emphasis is necessary, as the "religion" excludes the rights AND the existence of other human beings).
AGAIN, the only effective (non-military) way to "combat" this "religion"/ideology, aka propaganda, is with counter-propaganda. the most effective of which would be to denounce ISIS' interpretation of Islam. The first step would be to gather other Muslim leaders and countries to stand in opposition of ISIS and their beliefs. Without their support, there will always be a level of legitimacy to ISIS' claims. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if such leaders and nations were holding their tongues, just to see if ISIS can pull off a Worldwide Caliphate.
The second step would be to use Islam against them. By delving into the Islamic religion and finding contradictory ideas, philosophies, verses, and quotes, we can create a rift between the ISIS propaganda and the true meaning of being a Muslim. Then each recruit will be rejecting Islam in favor for ISIS gibberish. So that those that join ISIS will, in fact, garner NO benefits from their suicidal and violent actions. There will be no "72 virgins" waiting for them when they die; there will be no place in Heaven for them; there will only be fire and damnation.
Unfortunately all of this goes back to Marie Harf and her poor statements, which I assume, reflect the thoughts from the White House. The comments she made were so naive and ignorant, that I, as a proud United States of America citizen, am embarrassed.
Monday, February 23, 2015
ISIS (ISIL): Islamic Joke
The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant or The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a freakin' joke.
The only "authority" they have is created through fear and violence. They hold no religious backing what-so-ever. After all, they claimed themselves as the Worldwide Caliphate, which has just as much legitimacy as if the ASPCA declared themselves the Worldwide Caliphate. I'm certain that they believe themselves more Muslim than other Muslims; probably based on their interpretation of the Qur'an. Their "caliph", Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, would easily argue that his studies, receiving a BA, MA, and Phd., in Islamic Studies would qualify him as an expert. And yet it is with such great knowledge that it would be easy for him to abuse and manipulate the teachings of Muhammad. Turning these holy beliefs into propaganda for violence and power.
For was it not Muhammad who said:
"Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has no faith."
I'd hardly call any acts of ISIS as having any kindness, and therefore, by extension, has no faith. As much as they might use "religious beliefs" as honorable justification for their actions, the truth is they are simple fascists who prey on the weak, discarding religious fervor for bloodthirsty psychosis.
Or how about this:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; ..."
Final Sermon
"Surely there is no advantage (preference) for an Arab over an aajami (non-Arab), nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white over a black, except by piousness and good deeds."
Narrated by Imam Ahmad
"O People! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab,..., except in piety."
Narrated in Mosnad Ahmad
Do you think yourselves devout, ISIS? HA! To re-interpret the words of Muhammad to fit your ideology of "Might Makes Right", is not only delusional, but truly idiotic. True knowledge can be conveyed and understood through words; only the irrational and foolish speak through violence.
Don't believe me? Then how about this:
"The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr."
The Islamic Review, vol. 22 (1934), p. 105, edited by Khwajah Kamal al-din
I fact the quotes speak for themselves, you don't need my interjections. See how followers of Islam would condemn your actions:
"The Messenger of Allah said, "Verily, Allah has revealed to me that you should adopt humility. So that no one may wrong another and no one may be disdainful and haughty towards another."
-Riyadh-us-Salaheen
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to people."
Sahih al-Bukhari
"Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded."
Sahih Bukhari
"'What is the best type of jihad (struggle)?' He answered: 'Speaking truth before a tyrannical ruler.'"
Riyadh us-Saleheen
Allah's Apostle called "War is deceit."
Narrated Abu Huraira
And so on, (you can find more quotes and references at the link below).
I'm tired of pointing out the obvious: True leaders of men and women speak of compassion and empathy; those are the ones that will be honored for all time to come.
You, who promote violence and destruction, will be remembered only as evil men and laughable fools.
Muhammad quotes and more
The only "authority" they have is created through fear and violence. They hold no religious backing what-so-ever. After all, they claimed themselves as the Worldwide Caliphate, which has just as much legitimacy as if the ASPCA declared themselves the Worldwide Caliphate. I'm certain that they believe themselves more Muslim than other Muslims; probably based on their interpretation of the Qur'an. Their "caliph", Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, would easily argue that his studies, receiving a BA, MA, and Phd., in Islamic Studies would qualify him as an expert. And yet it is with such great knowledge that it would be easy for him to abuse and manipulate the teachings of Muhammad. Turning these holy beliefs into propaganda for violence and power.
For was it not Muhammad who said:
"Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has no faith."
I'd hardly call any acts of ISIS as having any kindness, and therefore, by extension, has no faith. As much as they might use "religious beliefs" as honorable justification for their actions, the truth is they are simple fascists who prey on the weak, discarding religious fervor for bloodthirsty psychosis.
Or how about this:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; ..."
Final Sermon
"Surely there is no advantage (preference) for an Arab over an aajami (non-Arab), nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white over a black, except by piousness and good deeds."
Narrated by Imam Ahmad
"O People! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab,..., except in piety."
Narrated in Mosnad Ahmad
Do you think yourselves devout, ISIS? HA! To re-interpret the words of Muhammad to fit your ideology of "Might Makes Right", is not only delusional, but truly idiotic. True knowledge can be conveyed and understood through words; only the irrational and foolish speak through violence.
Don't believe me? Then how about this:
"The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr."
The Islamic Review, vol. 22 (1934), p. 105, edited by Khwajah Kamal al-din
I fact the quotes speak for themselves, you don't need my interjections. See how followers of Islam would condemn your actions:
"The Messenger of Allah said, "Verily, Allah has revealed to me that you should adopt humility. So that no one may wrong another and no one may be disdainful and haughty towards another."
-Riyadh-us-Salaheen
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to people."
Sahih al-Bukhari
"Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded."
Sahih Bukhari
"'What is the best type of jihad (struggle)?' He answered: 'Speaking truth before a tyrannical ruler.'"
Riyadh us-Saleheen
Allah's Apostle called "War is deceit."
Narrated Abu Huraira
And so on, (you can find more quotes and references at the link below).
I'm tired of pointing out the obvious: True leaders of men and women speak of compassion and empathy; those are the ones that will be honored for all time to come.
You, who promote violence and destruction, will be remembered only as evil men and laughable fools.
Muhammad quotes and more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)