A trip down memory lane (part one)

Whenever I'm having a bad day, I find that reminiscing and thinking back to the 'good ole days' often helps cheer me up.

I admit, during the democrat primaries last year I was secretly hoping to see Hillary Clinton pull out a victory over Obama. At first I thought it was merely a case of me cheering for the underdog. However, today I realized that was not the case at all.

It wasn't so much that I wanted to see Hillary heading up the American government, but rather I wanted to see her husband Bill back in the spotlight. That's right, I believe I could stomach another four years of one William Jefferson Clinton being back in the spotlight.

While I disagree with almost all of his policies, I have to admit that there was nary a dull news day when Bill Clinton was president. In fact, had Hillary won (and then beaten McCain), newspapers would have received a new lease on life and wouldn't be falling off the map left and right.

For whatever reason, I was in a foul mood when I woke up this afternoon. I just happened to stumble across this video on YouTube, and it almost immediately cheered me up --- big-time.

So without further adieu, I present to you, President Bill Clinton telling the truth:





I hate to admit it, but God I love that video! Thanks Bill, you really cheered me up today :-)

Barack Obama is definitely NOT a Muslim

There have been some nasty rumors swirling around throughout the course of the election season purporting that Barack Obama is actually Muslim. As best I can tell, the rumors appear to stem from the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein. The fact is that this claim (that Obama is Muslim) could not be any further from the truth --- and the proof is below.

To even suggest that Barack Obama is Muslim or has ever practiced the religion of Islam is a heinous insult to the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who live peaceful lives and harbor no hatred nor aggression for others based upon such trivial characteristics as race and religion.

While I have never sat through a service at a Mosque, I have known enough Muslims well enough to know that their religion is far more loving and peaceful than that propagated by the likes of the Reverend Jeremiah Alvesta Wright Junior.

In fact, to associate Wright's church with any legitimate religion is a stretch to say the least. I have attended Catholic services for more than two decades, and I have never once heard anything uttered from the priest's mouth that in any way, shape, manner or form resembled the hate-filled rhetoric that has been programmed into the minds and hearts of Wright's flock --- Obamas included.

This is not a church or a religion. It is a cult, plain and simple. May God have mercy on us if this guy becomes the most powerful man in the world, whether by vote or by fraud.

As you watch the video below, keep in mind that Barack and Michelle Obama enjoyed these sermons on a weekly basis for 20 years.





America, don't say you weren't warned about this.

Michelle Obama caught using racial slur during NH campaign stop

Disclaimer: The following post is an attempt at political satire. For those of you in Rio Linda, that means that the story below is not true (make believe), and is intended to be funny.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire - Michelle Obama has again come under scrutiny for allegedly using a racial slur during a routine campaign stop in the key battleground state of New Hampshire on Monday. While having lunch with some campaign aides, Mrs. Obama reportedly referred to a white customer seated at a nearby table as a "cracker", setting off a brief but heated exchange between the two individuals that was diffused when the Secret Service intervened.

Mrs. Obama and some campaign aides had stopped off at a restaurant in coastal New Hampshire to sample some local fare when the alleged incident occurred. The group had recently been seated at a table inside the upscale seafood restaurant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire at the time of the event.

According to eye-witnesses, Mrs. Obama had ordered a bowl of New England-style clam chowder and appeared to be enjoying it, when a man seated at a table nearby caught her attention.

Apparently desiring something off of the nearby table, Mrs. Obama pointed her finger in the man's direction and in a sharp tone said, "Please pass me that cracker".

The man, who is white, was visibly angered by the use of slur by the black woman. He immediately stood up, turned toward her and shouted back at the potential first lady: "Hey, you can't use that word --- that's OUR word!"

When Mrs. Obama failed to acknowledge the man's response and refused to apologize for the racist remark - at one point even questioning whether or not he was even speaking to her - the man became irate and the Secret Service was forced to intervene.

According to the man at whom the slur was directed, he and his girlfriend had been sharing an appetizer consisting of steamed mussels and lobster spring rolls while they waited for their entrees to arrive.

"There was only one lobster roll left on the plate", said the man, who asked not to be identified by name. "She saw me going for it, and rather than just ask me nicely if she could have it, she had to go and offend me by calling me a cracker", he continued. "I honestly would have given it to her if she hadn't resorted to name-calling", he added.

Mrs. Obama repeated the slur when she initially told reporters that she was speaking to someone seated at her own table at the time, and that she found the man's response to be irrational and without merit.

“I was talking about the crackers at my own table --- you know, in the basket next to the napkins and sweeteners. This is all just a big misunderstanding”, she said.

However, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign issued a statement late Monday night flatly denying that the incident ever took place, and claiming that Michelle Obama has never even been to New Hampshire. The campaign has since refused to answer any questions about the subject, and has threatened to cut off interviews with any news organization that raises the subject in the future.

Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden suggested that Michelle had actually said "crack her", and was "probably trying to get someone at her table to open a bottle of ale for her, presumably one with a pop-top lid." Biden conceded however upon further questioning that it was not out of character for Mrs. Obama to threaten wait staff, and that the phrase "crack her" may have actually been directed at a waitress.

The owner of the restaurant offered the traumatized couple a $50 gift certificate in an effort to compensate for their negative experience. However, for the man targeted by the abusive hate-filled language, the damage had already been done.

"The really insulting thing about it is this claim by her that she wasn't even talking to me", said the victim.

"Like that makes it okay for her to say. Even if it were true, does she really believe that her words are any less hurtful if she said them to some white person in her own group instead of to some stranger? If I had said the n-word, would it really matter whether or not I was speaking to her directly? This whole experience has been surreal. I'm trying not to let it bother me, but as anyone who has been a victim of racism knows, that is much easier said than done."

Sarah Palin's Wardrobe and Michelle Obama's Room Service Bill

There has been much controversy surrounding the ever-important development of the RNC spending roughly $150,000 on Governor Sarah Palin's wardrobe. The RNC has been criticized for spending excessively on the prospective Vice President's attire. The media has also taken some heat for making an issue of this.

It is with that said that I offer the following defense of mainstream reporters and journalists across the United States:

We the people have a right to know these sorts of things, and the news media is simply doing its job by finding out juicy details such as the price of Sarah's wardrobe. After all, this woman could theoretically be only one person away from the very top of the American Government's chain of command.

Since mainstream American news organizations uphold themselves to the highest standards of objectivity and professionalism in reporting the news, allegations of mainstream publications engaging in yellow journalism for the sake of influencing an election are downright laughable.

As proof of this, I am totally confident that within a matter of days our 100% objective mainstream journalists will dutifully report on the total sum of Michelle Obama's room service bills accrued throughout the campaign season.

What we do know is that in one night, Mrs. Obama ordered two plates of lobster hors d'oeuvres, two lobster entrees, a bottle of fine Iranian champagne and Iranian caviar from room service at the Waldorf Astoria --- not the shabbiest of joints. We know that this was just one night on the campaign trail.

In light of this development, it is in the public's interest to know exactly how much money Mrs. Obama spent on dinner that night, as well as how much money she has spent on room service, not just that night but over the course of the entire campaign.

Since the media has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to fair and objective coverage throughout this election season, I have no doubt that it is merely a matter of time before our trusty reporters get back to us with this extremely important bit of information. As with the cost of Governor Palin's wardrobe, the American people have a need to know how much money Michelle Obama has spent on room service at all those five-star hotels. I'm sure the unbiased media will naturally agree and find out the answer so as to satisfy the curiosity of us mind-numb American media consumers.

While we're at it, out of personal curiosity I'd really like to know how much money Barack Obama paid for the domain name "fightthesmears.com". If anyone knows the answer to that one please fill me in in the comments area.

ACORN's Bloodless Coup D'Etat

The following is a response to an article entitled "The Dangers of Elections", which appeared at thebiglifeonline.com.

Freedom ain't free! It took a lot of bloodshed, death and violence to implement the electoral system of the American republic. The result is that for the past couple centuries elections in the United States have been largely free of violent intimidation tactics such as those described above.

For the first time in roughly two centuries, that system has been placed in serious jeopardy by the massive coordinated fraud being orchestrated by ACORN.

What ACORN is doing goes beyond trying to influence an election. ACORN is systematically attempting to undermine the democratic electoral system in the United States with the goal of producing a President and Commander in Chief that was not elected by the people whose votes determine the electoral college figures.

In other words, ACORN is attempting to pull off a bloodless coup d'etat --- not help one side win a legitimate election by means of helping legitimate voters get registered.

It took several bloody wars against native Americans and several more even bloodier wars against practically all of western Europe before our continent could have centuries of peace with (mostly) free, fair and open elections.

The war being waged by ACORN against our constitutional republic is every bit as much a threat to our nation and our form of government as was that waged by the Queen's England in 1812, or Hitler's Germany in the 1930's and 40's.

Our nation is at risk, and our elected officials across all branches of government and from all political parties and ideologies must come together in unison and act immediately to bring a permanent end to this rogue organization.

Should our leaders fail to defend the sanctity of elections, I cannot help but wonder what our nation's founders would have to say regarding the general citizenry and the extent to which we the people should go for the sake of reclaiming our country --- the country our founders fought so hard to create.

If our American Government fails to act appropriately, are we in fact obligated to take matters into our own hands, and if so, to what extent?

Big Brother Not Behind Raid on Polygamist Compound

Despite my flawless logic, the early returns on my recent post regarding the raid on the compound of a fundamentalist Mormon group alleged to have been engaging in systematic abuses (including sexual abuse) of their own children seem to indicate that there are still a lot of people out there who believe the raid never should have happened. You can check out some of the reader responses to the article here.

The following is an extended response to the first four reader comments to the Mixx page for the post linked to above:

For the record, I have deep-rooted libertarian leanings, and I am well aware of how the 'global elites' manipulate the public via the media into accepting and welcoming the precedents that form the foundation of a big-brother police state.

I am a freedom-loving individual, a gun-owner and member of the NRA. The very thought of government separating parents from their children by way of force makes me cringe. However disturbing that thought might be, the thought of what was in all likelihood happening to the children at that compound is far worse.

That said, while this situation does at first glance appear to be another attempt at advancing a totalitarian agenda, a deeper look reveals that this is probably not the case. When you've got a fundamentalist religious cult systematically brainwashing and sexually abusing their own children -- or even just reason to believe that it might be going on -- something has to be done.

I think this is more a case of a sheriff who was forced to make a tough decision who probably factored in his ability to sleep at night for the foreseeable future into the decision making process than it is an example of the big-brother conspiracy in action.

You have to look at each circumstance individually. This was not a federally sanctioned raid -- a stark contrast to Janet Reno's massacre of law-abiding citizens at a law-abiding religious compound in Waco, Texas. This was carried out and executed by state police (Texas Rangers). There was no federal involvement, and unlike Waco, laws are actually alleged to have been broken.

Somewhere along the line in this process, somebody (who probably has children of his/her own) had to make a judgment call as to whether or not to act on the unconfirmed report alleged to have been called-in by the 16 year-old sex slave and prisoner at the compound. At some point, this person probably considered the notion of somebody doing things alleged to have been taking place to that person's own child/children. When I look at this from this perspective, it becomes very clear just how easy a decision this would have been had I been responsible for ordering or calling-off the raid.

If the parents and leaders of the religious sect are innocent of the crimes of which they've been accused, the justice system will ultimately come to conclude this, and the accused will be free to return to their compound to like their unusual lifestyle. However, if these people are in fact guilty, the court will see to it that the criminals are locked up in prison -- which is exactly where they belong if convicted of the crimes that they are alleged to have committed.



Update: Texas officials investigating possible abuses to boys at polygamist compound

Details: Carey Cockerell, the head of the state's Department of Family and Protective Services, told state lawmakers Wednesday his agency was investigating whether young boys were abused based on "discussions with the boys." Cockerell also said 41 FLDS children had evidence of broken bones, some of whom are "very young." Full article

Authorities were right to bust-up Texas polygamist cult

In the aftermath of the recent raid on a polygamist cult in Texas, I have been shocked and dismayed by some of the comments I've been reading on various social media sites and blogs by people who feel that the children should not have been removed from the compound or separated from their parents.

I came across the following comment today in a story at Mixx about the aftermath of the raid: "they are lying about their age in order to protect their husbands. Poor people. Yes, they are brainwashed, but if they are happy, why can't they be left alone?"

The person went on to say: "they are being accused, and frankly, I don't believe for a second that they were raped. But that's my opinion. For a variety of reasons I don't judge lifestyles I don't understand."

It is a shame that the rest of this post even needs to be stated. However, some people apparently still do not understand why authorities in Texas had to do what they did - get those poor children away from the cult leaders, and try to separate them for as long as is possible under the law.

For those of you in Eldorado, and for those who prefer not to judge other people's lifestyles; I am more than happy to pick up the slack and do it for you - at least as it pertains to this particular cult in Texas.

Girls between 13-17 are children under the law
A 15 or 16 year old girl is not old enough to consent to marriage or sex with a 50 year old man. Additionally, the author of the comments that set me off conceded that these children have been brainwashed. How can one object to something for which there are no known alternatives? If these girls were brought up thinking that this lifestyle was normal and acceptable, that is a serious enough problem, and they cannot be expected to know inherently that everything they'd ever been taught was a load of BS.

What happened to all the boys?
Furthermore, where are all the boys from the "congregation"? Has anyone else noticed that there were far more girls than boys? Were they killed? Were they banished? One thing I'm sure of is that the probability of a "y" chromosome at conception is the same or close to the same as it would be for any other couple trying conceive. These pedophiles were obviously orchestrating the removal of the boys from their cult so that they could have all the teen and pre-teen girls as their own personal sex toys.

Some things are just wrong
That kind of stuff is not cultural and cannot be explained away with moral relativity. Rape, incest and pedophelia are not acceptable if the third-party bystander has an open mind. These are not quirky personality traits. These are the manifestations of evil incarnate. People who would knowingly, willingly and systematically abuse children in this manner are not fit to live in civilized society, and to leave children in the custody of these people would be a crime in and of itself. In any case, that's my two-cents on the matter.

Don't count your Diggs before they hatch

This post began as a comment I was writing in response to an article on Jason Calcanis' blog entitled "Who should Digg sell to: Newscorp, Microsoft, or Google?".

It's one thing for two opposite sides of a negotiation to have reached an agreement in principle over a proposed sale -- one in which the price is off-the-table and only the final details are left to be worked out. It is a completely different situation when there are ongoing negotiations with occasional figures being tossed around, but where the two sides have not reached an agreement on price, in principle or otherwise.

I mention this because I see in Calcanis' article the potential here for a classic reminder of why you should never count your eggs before they're hatched. Admittedly I'm no industry insider, however amid all the hype that came with the recent announcement of Digg's rumored sale, there are a few details that stand out like a sore thumb.

The first and most glaring of these is the fact that the rumored price of $200 million is $100 million less than the figure that was circulating when these rumors popped up just over a year ago.

The second has to do with Digg's traffic and site usage patterns. Digg's traffic has been steadily declining for the last year and a half, as has the amount of time its users are spending on the site (source: Alexa).

Finally, the kicker in all of this is the new competitor that according to Alexa appears to be snatching up the majority of Digg's lost users and traffic while establishing themselves as the innovative leader within the social news realm, and generating ridiculous amounts of press coverage while doing so. For those new to the subject, I am referring to a six-month-old site that goes by the name of Mixx.

In just six months, Mixx has developed a thriving community on a site that is already serving a half-million unique visits each month.

Mixx has made no secret of its plans to attack and attempt to compete with Digg head-on; and the early returns on these efforts show an unprecedented success. Mixx continues to grow while Digg and Reddit are busy trying to find a way to stop the bleeding. Head-to-head gains aside, Mixx has been extremely successful in convincing people that it is for real, in a way marginalizing the other horses in the race.

As far as this pertains to Google or the others rumored to be interested in the social news giant, Mixx is a dangerous competitor that dramatically changes the dynamic of the competitive field, even before its traffic and user-base is large enough to justify the attention. Why is this? Because of Chris McGill.

McGill is not your typical college-student-turned-millionaire president of a popular web 2.0 site. In a field that is ripe with rich amateurs, McGill is unmistakably qualified to be competing at this level.

From Wikipedia: "The former head of strategy at USA TODAY, McGill previously served as the general manager of Yahoo! News where he oversaw the transformation of that site into the world’s largest online news outlet."

Make no mistake about it, Digg's prospective buyers are well-aware of this fact. They know the investment they are looking at will run well in excess of the actual sales price. Unfortunately for Digg, they have been unable demonstrate an ability to retain their existing users while putting a stop to Mixx's steady growth. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons the asking price has been slashed by 1/3, or $100 million.

To its credit, Digg did at least make an effort to retake the fort, but the algorithm changes intended to do just that blew up in its face by angering both the "power users" and the rest of the community without really motivating anyone to spend more time at Digg.

On top of all of these hurdles, Digg still has to contend with all of the many niche social media sites popping up left and right. Every day, sites like BigEasyLinks.com and HealthandWellnessArticles.com pop up in hopes of attracting a mere fraction of the communities found at sites like Digg and Mixx. For every one of these such sites that enters the marketplace, the uniqueness of the Digg concept deteriorates just a little.

From my outsider's perspective, it appears Google is expecting further price concessions. And why shouldn't they? Until Digg can show that the bleeding has stopped, their position within the market is secure, and that it is not just a matter of time until they are replaced by Mixx as top-dog; Google and the others would be wise to simply sit back and wait to see how far Digg's traffic will fall.