Loading...

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Rush and Free Speech V Democrats and Socialism

Doug Powers from his Blog the Powers that be wrote an interesting article about the Hush Rush Campaign. A campaing to stifle free speech and destroy American freedom in the name of attacking controversial shock Jock Rush Limbaugh. Powers exposes the left's hypocrisy in this by pointing out that while they consider the right to abort an innocent baby sacrosant, they do not feel the same towards free speech. Also, in a time when Islamofascism and tyranny threaten our existence, they are more threatned by Rush and others like him.

The article, "Don't you wish" can be found here at this link Here are some exerpts:

Don’t you wish Democrats felt as threatened by Islamofascism as they are by Rush Limbaugh?

Don’t you wish Democrats recognized the right to free speech with the same enthusiasm they recognize the right to an abortion?

Don’t you wish Democrats criticized what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas say half as much as they criticize what Rush Limbaugh says?

Don’t you wish Democrats wanted to balance the political makeup of university professors and mainstream media reporters as badly as they want to balance the political makeup of radio talk hosts?

Don’t you wish Democrats would be as blind to race cards as they are blind to the irony in trying to convince people that Rush Limbaugh must be silenced because he’s a threat to free speech?

Don’t you wish Democrats would stop pretending that if Obama fails it will be because Rush Limbaugh wanted him to?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Answering objections to Gitmo and why we must incarcerate terrorists

I have come across a lot of socialists whining over Guantanamo bay's prison for terrorists. I have seen both shades of race card playing, talks of civil liberties ETC. ETC.

Perhaps one debate point that is of understandable concern involves civil liberties. Question: is the incarceration of detainees in Guantanamo bay Cuba who are not US citizens constitutional? And what about allegations of forced confessions and torture?

The allegation is that it violates habeus Corpus, that they were given military trials instead of civil trials. Many compare this to the incarceration of Japanese citizens in world war 2 or those suspected of harboring sympathies for the confederates during the civil war.

President Barack Obama has decided to close Gitmo and that the terror suspects all must be freed. It has been done already to an extent thanks to pressure by leftists claiming to support civil liberties. A good example of this is Said Ali al-Shihri. Said was arrested in Afghanistan and was found to have had involvement with al-qaeda. He was detained in Guantanamo and with the help of the so called ACLU and other bleeding hearts was released. He claimed he was only doing humanitarian work and wanted to go back home and go back to his family.

Instead Said returned to Yemen as an Al-Qaeda leader. He paid back the gratitude by leading and planning attacks including the attacks on the Danish Embassy in September. The mass media kept the fact that the leader of the attack was a former detainee. When that failed, Bolshevik Journalist Keith Olbermann made a ridiculous claim that Said did it all because Gitmo inspired him. The same liberal arguements. We let them down, society is to blame, we hurt him, blah blah blah.

Consider another former detainee; Salim al-Ajmi. Released in March, he went straight to Iraq to carry out suicide bombings in Rasul against Iraqi police.

First of all let it be clear that the Bush administration failed to pursue these incarcerations in a proper matter that would not only remove the stain that was being exaggerated by the left but would allow use to continue to incarcerate them even longer even indefinitely.

For one, Bush could easily solve this problem by declaring the detainees to be POWS, Prisoners of war. They would receive the same privileges guaranteed in the Geneva convention, they would get packages from the red cross, they could live nicely the same way we treated prisoners of war in other wars such as Korea and World War 2. If the war on terror lasts forever? Well, then they are there forever then. The ACLU couldn't touch them neither the left. It would be protected by international treaties. No problems. If bush had done so, Salim and Said would still be in Gitmo, playing basketball and enjoying some of those nice halal red cross rations.

What about torture? There are many allegations of torture. First of all, there should be no torture. We are Americans, we believe in justice freedom and fairness not tyranny like the marxist left does. So what about all this water boarding? How about the general that discharged a firearm near a suspect to get him to talk?

The water boarding was done to get terror suspects to reveal the locations and times for new plots. It basically involves forcing water into the face of the suspect. At times they do gag on the water but it is nothing compared to what happened in Marxist countries involving electrocution, amputation and other methods. Sometimes it simply doesn't work. If America wanted to really torture terror suspects they could do it the same way the left did in Vietnam and Cambodia. The same left that whines and gripes.

Liberal Hypocrisy revealed



It amazes me that the left attacks Bush, Israel and the US as war criminals and thugs for fighting to defend its existence but when Terrorists, insurgents and others commit real war crimes and use children and civilian structures as shields, the left is silent. Communist and fascist countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, China, Germany, Italy, Japan and others torture innocent people and dissidents using brutal methods and the Liberals are silent. The ACLU is silent, So called People for the American way are silent, ANSWER is silent, Mexica is silent, Rosie O'fatty is silent, Hollywood is silent and says nothing whenever these countries torture innocent people. If on the other hand, the US or its allies fights back, they go ballistic.

In Iraq Saddam Hussein would torture his victims by putting them in plastic shredders, gouging the eyes out of children to make the parents confess to crimes they never did and Saddam would gas Kurd villages. The left was silent. John McCain and other American prisoners of War were tortured brutally into confessing to be war criminals simply because they were fighting to defend South Vietnam and South East Asia from Communist Aggression. The left was silent except to use these invalid confessions to attack American servicemen like McCain and their credibility. If America frightens some terrorist to confess to the location of a terror plot, that's a no no. John McCain to this day is considered to be a war criminal by the left all because he signed a confession by force. Forced confessions are not valid but to a Democrat, that's only if you are one of those nasty right wingers trying to protect obsolete freedoms.

So while America is under attack around the world for holding prisoners who really are terrorists, while Israel is under fire for defending its existence while being outnumbered 100 to 1, the real enemy along with the freed detainees create havoc and blood shed. In that case, the world and the left are silent.

Gitmo is a necessary evil. The men held are not citizens and do not enjoy the same freedoms that we have and that they denied others on 9/11. Though there are remedies to this problem, we must continue to do whatever it takes to safeguard American security and American liberty so as to not endanger the liberty of her citizens.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Mainestategop's big move.

Moving time has come. I have been away awhile since I have been moving on out of state to help set up a new business. I am now living in Somersworth New Hampshire. Its not as nice as Bangor but at least there are no crazy socialists or exploding taxes and regulations there. My Dad, Uncle and I are setting up anew after business in Maine was no longer profitable and we started losing money. New Hampshire will do for now, until the left gains more power and begins sucking the life out here as well. NH used to be the best state for starting a business, now it's 14th and going lower and lower thanks to an influx of leftists moving here from Taxachussetes, Maine and Vermont, leaving behind them a trail of destruction.

I hear all of you complaining about repeat posts I understand. I will keep them to a minimum from now on. More new exciting articles including a history lesson about Rorkes drift from my webmaster. I will also write about Gitmo, the mortgage crisis ETC.

Videos on how Obama censors criticism and free speech

I have gotten a lot of complaints from socialists on my blog and the youtube network that I don't do enough to show how Obama is suppresing free speech. Well, here we have some delicious movies from youtube showing just that.









Just a taste of Obama's new America.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Why Walmart IS good for America

Recently I saw two movies that attacked the controversial Wal-mart department store. A PBS documentary called Is Wal-Mart good for America? And Wal-Mart the high cost of low price an independent movie about Wal-mart and the Walton family. I also visited wakeupwalmart.com for more info this article is a refutation on most of the BS that appeared on the two documentaries. First of all we need to ask ourselves why "Wal-Mart is under ferocious attack by the left?" Wal-Mart delivers well on its promise of low prices to Americans. Being a resident of one of the poorest and liberal states in the nation, my family and I bank on Wal-Mart to save money. Many other families including those most down and out also bank on Wal-Mart and many also depend on Wal-Mart for income. Living in the least friendly business economy in the nation, Wal-Mart is a sure bet for some income and employment? Many of Wal-Mart’s employees would otherwise have no job were it not for the giant retail. Many of its employees also have barriers that keep them out of most other jobs. Wal-Mart provides relief from poverty for those most in need so just why is the left in an uproar? There are some legitimate concerns that are being brought up, such as Wal-Mart’s dealings with communist China, the threat to small businesses, forcing employees to work of the clock, purchasing from factories with sweatshop labor ETC. but according to media watchdog times watchhttp://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080605145300.aspx The New York Slimes rag reveals that the main culprits behind the attack are union bosses. Democrats and their Union allies have for many years tried to crack the retail giant to set up unions but in vain. Many anti-Wal-Mart sites including wake up Wal-Mart are behind the attack on Wal-Mart and are run by union activists. Of course the other reason is to promote Marxism. Wal-Mart is the epitome of the success of the free market capitalist system and Marxist Democrats are whipping up the masses to tear it down at all costs using arguments which as I shall demonstrate are as flawed as the failed system Wal-Mart’s worst enemies want to impose on us...

One of the first arguments used and the most common is that Wal-Mart destroys small businesses and drives down land values whenever it builds in a small community. We've seen in happen in a lot of places. Why is it that whenever Wal-Mart builds a new store Main street USA goes to hell in a hand basket? Most of the problem has very little to do with the retail giant coming to town and more to do with economic policies in the city and state that have a profound effect on small businesses as opposed to a mega conglomerate. A good example of this is found in the city of Skowhegan Maine. In the early nineties, Skowhegan Maine was a struggling paper mill town located in Somerset County. The economy like most small towns in Maine struggled under the tyranny of Democrats. Heavy taxes and regulations had taken their toll. Businesses could barely stay afloat that and the town was recovering from a recent recession. Then it came. Wal-Mart began to open its first department stores in Maine including one in Skowhegan. Wal-Mart had no problem absorbing the cost of liberalism while marketing low prices while appealing to the town’s impoverished underclass. Under communism and a post-recession economy, mom and pop could no longer compete it was not a fair fight. Only a couple months after opening, virtually every store in town went out of business. Wal-Mart then began to suffer and raised the cost of its goods to keep up. This prompted outrage, a boycott and intervention by the city to keep costs down. Since most of Skowhegan’s residents were taking their money elsewhere Wal-Mart brought its prices down.But does this have anything to do with Wal-Mart? Only a little.

You see for over twenty years Maine has been notorious as being the meanest to small business. Maine liberals care more for the welfare of spotted owls rats and birds and trees then family stores and its customers and they care more about lazy irresponsible welfare queens than responsible taxpayers. That is bound to catch up and it has only gotten worse with time. Small businesses on the verge of collapsing were standing on a teetering house of cars. Another tax hike plus the addition of a big retail that could take the beating was all it took. The local paper mill also began laying off workers and many of the residents left. It was not Wal-Mart’s fault that small businesses failed but the fault of Maine's liberal politicians who passed a system of taxation and regulation that pressed hardest on those least able to pay. They simply could not afford the cost.

This brings up another attack, that Wal-Mart jacks the prices up after driving out competition. The Maine economy's effects caught up on big business so Wal-Mart passed that cost on the consumer. A boycott and that people took their money elsewhere encouraged them to bring down the price. It wasn't just Wal-Mart, the local McDonalds restaurant also went under and a local Hannaford’s also almost followed suit. But the town did recover thanks in large to Wal-Mart. After tax revenues began to pour in Skowhegan and other communities were able to set up business incentives to help the little guy compete and ease the burdens. With Wal-Mart other big stores made their way to Maine. Skowhegan now has several mini malls as well as a Best Buy and a Sam's Club. Wal-Mart may as well saved the town of Skowhegan and much of Maine from bankruptcy but that's gratitude for you.

There were some places where Wal-Mart was demanded and welcomed even in Maine! One place was another mill town, Lincoln Maine. (The town is nicknamed stinkin Lincoln because of the paper mill.) In addition to having a mill, the town also boasted large real estate and tourism. Many visitors come to the nearby lake. Many of the customers at Wal-Mart are also tourists. So it's no surprise that many of them have been clamoring for years for a supercenter. Eventually they expanded and are in the process of expanding. By the way, Lincoln and many other communities that have a Wal-Mart store or supercenter (Waterville, Newport, Norway, Lewiston, Augusta, Portland, Saco, Biddeford, Presque Isle, Calais, Houlton, ETC.) still have small businesses. A good friend of mine from Maine now resides in Lubbock Texas told me that the city has at least ten box stores in town. Small business isn't hurt a bit. Part of the Reason is that Texas does not have communist government controls that Maine has. Keep this in mind next time you start hearing a bleeding heart Chicken Little liberal scream about Wal-Mart coming to your town.

Another strong argument is that Wal-Mart mistreats it's workforce by paying its employees very little money or benefits and even encourages its employees to go on welfare programs. Well first of all let's remember that the positions these people are being paid at are entry level positions. When I was growing up before there was a Wal-Mart I worked at a grocery store bagging and stocking and of course I got minimum wage. I was just starting out; I did very menial and simple labor. That's what goes on at Wal-Mart. It's not just them everyone else. But the PC crowd would rather go after Wal-Mart for hiring a single mother of 3 than if they hired a college student at mom and pop's place for peanuts too. That brings us to the people who get hired at these jobs. Some of the people who do get hired at Wal-Mart (Not all of them keep in mine) Some of them are low lifers with no education, with disabilities and who could not get hired at any other jobs because of their incompetence and their record of previous employment. Some of the employees are welfare recipients who are already grandparents at the age of 30 and some of them even have long rap sheets that would keep them out of even most menial jobs but what about the fact that Wal-Mart hires them anyway? What about how Wal-Mart is kind enough to hire those who have no jobs? In an economic wasteland like where I live where people are unable to move because they are too poor, too stupid, or too lazy where do you go to get a job? Leave it to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is good for keeping unemployment down. As for wages, many who work either already work another job, some are also on the welfare rolls and are social security recipients so they are already making enough money to get by and support themselves and their families. Also after working for a long period of time, employees make up to 10.17 and hour. Let's ask another question, where are the fathers of these children of single Wal-Mart workers who still cant cut it? They have a litter of children, can't make enough money but we don't ask about where the father(s) of the kids are and why they aren't paying support?Many accuse the retail giant of mistreating its employees by making them work off the clock and not giving them health care benefits.

Others note how overnight employees are locked up and are even threatened with loss of employment if they use the fire exit without manager's permission. Then there are allegations of gender discrimination and Union busting.First concerning working off the clock, Wal-Mart has faced lawsuits throughout the country by employees alleging unpaid labor. Former managers have alleged that workers are not paid working for more than 40 hours a week. In the movie Wal-Mart High cost of Low price, an employee was required to stock several shirts in 30 minutes she had left in her shift but took her an hour. She chooses to say nothing since she feared losing her job. First let me say that this is wrong on many fronts. In America we believe that people should be paid for the work they do. However note that some employees who aren't able to meet that quota needed the extra time. In some businesses such employees are laid off.

Second concerning the controversy over fire exits, this is an outright hoax invented by the anti Wal-Mart crowd. It is true that employees are locked inside after hours but this is to prevent employees from stealing products and to prevent criminals outside from robbing the inside. Other stores and businesses have done the same practice. In the event of a fire federal law requires that employees use the fire exits. No one is going to fire you if you use a fire exit to escape a fire. The place is going to burn to the ground so there goes the job anyway. No use getting cooked yourself. Second no sane businessman would dare allow anything of the sort to happen. If Wal-Mart did so, the ACLU would be licking their chops at an opportunity. Unfortunately not all people are that smart. About twenty years ago in another department store chain, the owners did the same thing and chained the fire exit shut. The place caught on fire and the victims and their families sued the heck out of them. Wal-Mart managers aren't that dumb.

Concerning health care programs, many employees are already covered by local health care programs such as CHIP, Maine care, Medi Cal, Badger care, Medicare, ETC. Unfortunately like other health insurances Wal-Mart health care has been known to be inefficient and restrictive to who gets it. But this problem exists in other companies as well. Still, it is better than no health insurance despite criticism.

Then there’s the big crux, unions. Wal-Mart has been notorious for being anti union but the workers at Wal-Mart are also to blame. Some of them know that many unions are known for being corrupt and extortionist and that rather than make the job easier would make it a nightmare. If unions did succeed, Wal-Mart would be forced to raise it's costs and reduce it's workforce.

One of the biggest lies being brought out is that Wal-Mart fosters racism and gender discrimination. Women according to anti Wal-Mart activists are discriminated on the job in wages and rank because they are woman. Yet in another anti Wal-Mart book called The Working Poor, a middle aged woman on welfare is interviewed complaining she is passed over at Wal-Mart because she is old and over weight. The people who are getting hired to management are younger women. Yes indeed you heard that right! Wal-Mart IS hiring Woman managers. Go to your local Wal-Mart and see for yourself who else is getting into management. The same is said for racism. In Wal-Mart High Cost Low Price, they base this on an interview with a black man who suffered racial bigotry from co workers while management did nothing. Racism exists in other stores and other businesses in America. Again, go to Wal-Mart in urban areas see all the minority managers.

Another lie that is made is that Wal-Mart opposes port security. Several years back it was alleged that Wal-Mart was putting it's profits before America's security to keep importing goods at fast pace. The Wal-Mart lobby demanded that but the truth is there never was any lobbying against tightening port security. Rather the lack of security is a lack of resources at our ports to inspect every ship coming ashore to a do nothing lazy congress that is as lax on port security as border security.One other problem we hear about is empty Wal-Mart stores that take up space and clutter the town. The Empty store is uselessly large and Wal-Mart’s interference to prevent competitors from moving in makes it useless.

This is not quite true. There are a lot of uses for the property. In Lubbock Texas for example, a friend of mine told me that a small shopping mall they have was once an empty Wal-Mart. In Portland Maine, Businesses like Lowe's have moved into empty Wal-Mart’s. The empty stores are often used and reused as shopping malls, mega churches, administration buildings ETC. Also they can just knock it down and build something else in it's place. While they might put a non compete clause in the contract, it has not stopped some stores to be put in good use.

Finally there are the allegations of Wal-Mart importing goods from overseas in sweatshops in places like China India and Mexico ETC. Listen up! Just about every company even small business does this! Still, if you look hard enough there are a few goods at places like Wal-Mart and Target that are sold that have been made in the USA. Just go to any business in America on Main Street and tell me that all mom and pop stores buy American! I’m not saying that's a good thing though but Wal-Mart is not the only guilty party.

Of course there are a few things about Wal-Mart that we should be concerned about. First is that it does receive subsidies from the government and a leg up against everyone else. In Wal-Mart High Cost Low Price, an IGA store went under after a super Wal-Mart opened. The store got 9 million dollars, IGA no money. Wal-Mart should not be getting corporate welfare. It makes companies less efficient, competitive and less innovative. Wal-Mart can still be the best at what it does without help from taxpayers. Second of all, Wal-Mart should do more to use American made goods which are better than the garbage made by third world Marxist slave labor. Third, Wal-Mart stores should hire more workers specifically baggers and they should use this to encourage the welfare recipients in this country to learn work ethics and Wal-Mart should gear their workers toward learning new skills. Fourth, Wal-Mart should do a better job of keeping illegal immigrants out of it's workforce. Several stores in America run by Wal-Mart have been hiring them. I once heard a story how a California Wal-Mart store had mostly immigrants from Mexico and Eastern Europe in it's work force. Most were not documented and sure enough, they were forming a union with the help of their communist allies. It was only then that they took action. They claimed they didn't know they were illegal. (Liars) They fired most of the striking workers and booted the illegal workers and hired the homeless from local shelters as well as welfare recipients to do the work. From what I heard it did the trick. Finally, Wal-Mart should stay out of politics. When they first tried to support gay rights and gay benefits, Wal-Mart lost money and continues to lose money. Best they just stay out of those things.

Despite complaints and criticisms, Wal-Mart INC is far more a boon than a bane for America. Wal-Mart department stores offer cheap solutions to help struggling families save money and stretch their budgets. Although the Walton's themselves may not be charitable (The Waltons have only given 1% of their wealth to charity it is alleged while Bill Gates gave 50% of his wealth) Wal-Mart stores do individually contribute to charities such as United Way, Salvation Army and other groups. They also employ and give hope and a future to those with no job or who cannot find work elsewhere. Working with local welfare agencies, Wal-Mart has successfully brought thousands out of the welfare trap, many of whom were considered unemployable and brought them into the work force. Tax monies from Wal-Mart stores go to funding local programs and helping cities and states in balancing their budget. Wal-Mart IS indeed good for America and at a low cost.

Michael Savage's remarks on autism

Shock Jock Michael Savage is in hot water again this time for a stating his belief that 99% of Autism cases are fake. He has taken a beating from parents of autistic children and those who lobby for them. However, let us play devil's advocate for a moment... Are Savage's comments mean spirited or could there be some truth to it? Are children who are diagnosed with autism and Asperger's syndrome (Considered a high functioning form of Autism) being over diagnosed? Are the diagnostic criteria for Autism and Asperger's really too broad and too flawed that otherwise ordinary playful children are labeled with this devastating disorder for playful weird behavior?

First, we should put Savage's comments into context. Consider his remarks about minority children with Asthma:

"Why was there an asthma epidemic amongst minority children? Because I will tell you why: The children got extra welfare if they were disabled, and they got extra help in school. It was a money racket. Everyone went in and was told [fake cough], 'When the nurse looks at you, you go [fake cough], "I don't know, the dust got me." ' See, everyone had asthma from the minority community. Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, "Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot." Autism -- everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, "Don't behave like a fool." The worst thing he said -- "Don't behave like a fool. Don't be anybody's dummy. Don't sound like an idiot. Don't act like a girl. Don't cry." That's what I was raised with. That's what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You're turning your son into a girl, and you're turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That's why we have the politicians we have!"

Michael's comments seemed harsh but when we put it into context, we see that Michael is in reality speaking out against over diagnosing and misapplying labels. He defended his comments well on Larry King live with Glenn Beck. Here are some highlights:

BECK: But, Michael, what did you really mean?
SAVAGE: Ah-ha, very funny.
BECK: Michael Savage, I'm a guy who has been taken out of context all the time. We wanted to make sure we played a full cut. It seems pretty clear you don't really believe autism exists?
SAVAGE: No, no, no, no. Again, you took what they gave you but you didn't take the entire preceding material. Preceding this, Glenn, was a discussion of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has had the nerve to say that children as young as two years of age should be given anti-cholesterol drugs.
BECK: Right.
SAVAGE: There's been not one study about the damage this would do or potentially do to two year-olds, and yet you have had doctors come out and say these drugs should be given to the children. This was in the broader context of the over-medicalization, the over- diagnose of disease, using our children as profit centers. I've spent all day saying what a shame it is that I, as man who has spent his entire life defending the defenseless, mainly children, should have to defend myself from charges leveled at me by men who specialize in hating families and children, namely Media Matters who probably come after you as well, by ripping me out of contest and making me look like the monster that they are.
BECK: Michael, let me ask you this, I am a guy who has been taken out of context. I am a guy who has been called a monster and everything else. I understand context. Talk radio is extremely difficult to do in sound bites because it is a three-hour running monologue, especially with somebody like you. But when you say 99 percent of the cases are brats who should be told to cut the act out and not act like morons, as a dad with a child with special needs, boy that cuts right.
SAVAGE: I understand what you're saying. If you heard the entire show, you would have heard me addressing those comments to the misdiagnosed, false diagnosed and outright racketeers, as opposed to the general category of autistic children. Glen, let me say this again, the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending that all children be screened for ALD, that's autism, at the 18 to 24 month level. In England, the UK National Screening Committee recommends against screening for autism in this young general population. Why? Because screening tools haven't been fully validated and treatments and intervention lack sufficient evidence for effectiveness, meaning there is no definitive diagnose, no biomedical diagnose, no blood test, no MRI's which will prove definitively that a child has autism. It's become such a gigantic category that overly bright children are being put into this category. why is this happening? How could there be an epidemic that's come out of nowhere, where one out of 150 children suddenly have an illness that hardly existed 20 years ago. You have to use common sense here.

Keep in mind Michael Savage was not denying the existence of autism. Glenn Beck even came out and admitted that he too had a special needs child with disabilities. Savage Had this to say about genuine autistic children:

SAVAGE: First of all, truly autistic children need treatment and help. And they should get all of the money and services that are available. My comments are directed at the falsely diagnosed, misdiagnosed or outright fraudulently diagnosed children who are basically using money they shouldn't be getting. Glen, how often have you seen people pull into handicap zones with blue placards, who get out of their car and look well. The minute they see you looking at them askance, they pull out a cane and start hobbling. Those are the people I'm addressing here. I know there is little time to cover. I say let the truly autistic be treated. Let the falsely diagnosed be treated. Do you know that right now they have broadened the definition of autism to such a thing as called the autistic spectrum. What does that mean? What is the autistic spectrum? Kids with a very high IQ or simply late in talking could fall into that category? Should we take people who where glasses and put them into the blindness spectrum? Should we take people with moles on their face and put them into a category called the cancer spectrum and treat them as such?What I am saying is many parents, unfortunately, have been urged to let their children be labeled autistic. Why? To get money for speech therapy or other conditions from grants that are available to deal with autism.

Shortly after a commercial break Beck interviewed several autistic experts who attempted to refute Savage's claims of fraud and over diagnosis. No doubt, they are looking out for their own interests instead of the interests of children and families. One of these men was Dr. Jay Gordon, a pediatrician who had these comments:

DR. JAY GORDON, PEDIATRICIAN: I disagree very strongly. I think you put Mr. Savage's comments in context, not out of context. In my 30 years of taking care of children, I haven't seen an over-diagnosis of autism and delays, I've seen an under-diagnosis. Because of what he said without any facts to support him, some children will be hurt. As the doctor just said, we need to be aware. We need to diagnose children early and help them. There are children on the autism spectrum that will have trouble in academic settings and in social settings. And the earlier that we identify these children, we can get them the help that we need. There are going to be people who are uninformed enough to believe Mr. Savage and children will be hurt by his comments.

Get this ladies and gentlemen, we've been hearing over and over again about the raging epidemic of autism and Asperger’s in children, how your child is more likely to be autistic than being struck by lightning and so on. Yet according to a quack there is not over diagnosis in fact, there is an under diagnosis! In other words we have not even scratched the surface and millions and millions of children are walking around oblivious of autism and Asperger’s!

The attacks against Michael Savage may have more to do with the pay checks of fraudulent doctors such as Jay Gordon then whether Savage's remarks were offensive. In truth the Autism industry is a profitable industry that destroys the lives of families and individuals while allowing doctors, psychiatrists, lobbyists, government employees and others to line their pockets. The misapplication of Aspergers' and Autism is devastating.

As Michael Savage mentioned in Europe doctors are discouraging mandatory screening of Autism and Asperger's because the diagnostic tools are not all efficient and the screening tools are not readily available! But the American Academy of Pediatrics is more interested in making money for themselves, for schools, for crooked doctors, social workers, case workers, government administration and others. Rest assured that all of this will be done at the expense of not just their victims but American Tax payers as well. In fact many states such as My home state of Maine already require mandatory screening of children entering the school system for Autism and Aspergers. There is not telling how many children have been misdiagnosed and have been subject to painful and distressing interventions and therapies as well as being subject to being followed for the rest of their lives with the stigma of being labeled Autistic. Michael Savage in fact has done us all a service with his courageous stance.

In future articles I intend to further show how BIG Government, psychiatrists, schools and other institutions are using Autism to promote an unscrupulous agenda. I will also introduce you to an old freind of mine from Maine who was falsely diagnosed with Asperger's for being cruely abused and raped in school by classmates, and how his parents abused him using that labeled and caused him to become unemployed and homeless in Los Angeles Skid Row and how he overcame the stigma of being labeled and abused.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Tyranny of Matriarchy (feminist Fascism)

The feminists are whipping up women to join their ranks and rebel against the tyranny of the patriarchy. They claim they want a society that will give them equal rights regardless of gender. They want a unisex society where women can enter the workforce and hold a good career as do the men. The feminists however want something else instead. They want more than a platform over a pedestal, they want a throne.

During the sixties when you had in the name of civil rights radicals fighting for so called equality, these people had us thinking they really wanted equality but what they really meant was turning the tables. I wasn't around then but I was told from eyewitnesses what really went down. They were the same then as the left is now. They were ruthless and merciless not to mention very intolerant of opposing view points. They said they were going to tear down the establishment and for awhile they succeeded in nearly shutting down the government. (Gosh I wish we had some patriotic God fearing Americans with the guts to do the same thing today and actually shut it down!) Remember affirmative action? It was billed as a civil rights initiative to promote equality. I believe it was Walter Mondale who said that if it did lead to discriminating against white he would eat his hat. Of course he died so he cheated. But affirmative action rather than promote equality shut out other racial groups from good paying jobs especially whites.

These young kids work their tails off studying at university and when they get in line, they find they are cut out in favor of someone who did not have as much talent or who worked as hard simply because of race. It's not just whites. A lot of other races are excluding for one or the other. Blacks over Mexicans over Chinese Jews and others. The feminists want the same thing. They want to turn the tables on the men for the women. They don't want a unisex society they want a matriarchal society. We see today how women are being favored now more than men. A friend of mine who was at a homeless shelter in south Central Los Angeles told me of how they used to bus people to and from downtown. Every morning the bus would pick people up and take them downtown to go work or go hang out on skid row. The bus however would pick up females first to go downtown. On the second run the security guards would sometimes call for more females to pack the bus leaving out most of the men. The bus would pick up usually three or four times and usually a lot of men were forced to walk. It took almost an hour to walk from the shelter to downtown Los Angeles. A friend of his who had a job kept losing his bus seat to the women. It didn't matter how early he was, he would sometimes even skip breakfast to try and catch the bus to go to work but you know how it is "Ladies first." Then they would roust up more women to push out the men. He kept showing up to work late and got fired. Most of these so called "ladies" were hard core bums who took the bus to spend their taxpayer funded welfare checks from TANF or GR on the crack dealers in skid row, some of them had kids with dozens of men and were homeless because they screwed around too much at their taxpayer funded housing that they lost it, and most don't want to work. It's real sad.

A lot of government services and charities are geared towards women. There are more shelters and services for single women then there are for single men. The men are expected to pull themselves up from their boot straps even the ones who are handicapped or severely mentally ill. Why aren't the women expected to do the same? I recently read a statistic that the percent of homeless who are women are only 18% as opposed to men. Wonder why? A lot of good jobs that pay well will only hire women because we are told they are more mature than men. Meanwhile we keep hearing about a glass ceiling. Our educational system is also geared towards matriarchy. Girls are doing better at school than men are, I read a statistic about how African American women were succeeding better then the men and the same statistic applies to all races whether in the urban or suburban areas. Why?

Whenever a husband and wife try to divorce the woman is usually favored by the courts over the men. The woman sometimes makes false claims that the man abuses her and the kids and they all side with her against the man. The woman gets custody of the kids, the man pays child support and is usually rendered homeless as a result. I met a man who became homeless under similar circumstances. He lived in Winterport and then his wife demanded a divorce and threw him out of the house. She said if he didn't settle she would tell the cops he raped her. Guess who everyone believed without even examining the facts? The man is now homeless in Portland. He stays at shelters and also camps on the water front. He held only a few small jobs and has a disability that affects him. He also gets SSI and trying to get HUD housing except that the women once more are put first in line. Especially if they have bastard kids by different men.

Welcome to the new Matriarchal America. Men need not apply here. Ladies first. If you even want to consider these people real ladies.

Reruns this month

This month Im posting some very very ancient articles since Im in the process of moving. Give some of our new viewers to read and respond. My webmaster is going to write a new history article on Rorkes drift next week.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Back by popular demand: Stories of Left wing intolerance in Maine

Lately I've been thinking of four left wing incidents that happened in Maine over the course of two years. I feel I should get them off my chest I think some of them would be interesting and I think others should know about them.
The first one involves an incident that took place in the Bangor metro area two years ago. This freind of mine and his family were having trouble. He had difficulty getting by and he worked at Edwards Shop'n'save in Hampden outside Bangor. He was on food stamps and his wife was laid off and couldn't get a job. He got paid about 230$ for work but the Democrats in Augusta took 40$ out of his paycheck for taxes and withold and some other stuff I dont remember. He and a couple other employees were near the service counter and he talked about how taxes in Maine were too high (Maine has one of the highest tax burdens, largest governments and is 48th poorest state in the country.) at the time the tabor amendment was on the ballot and he discussed how he supported it. Well there was this woman at custormer service who was a democrat who overheard it and complained to the manager how offended she was by it. He called him into his office the next week and the next day he had no job. Can you believe it? This guy was making next to nothing, complaineed about how taxes were making it hard for a low income worker to get by how there weren't enough jobs and this liberal moonbat throws a fit at the manager and gets him fired. After that they almost went under but thanks to prayer and hard work he got a new Job in Waterville where he gets more money and gets to keep more of it. Reminds me about the poor Kulaks in Russia. They were poor and the communists wanted what little they had and if they protested they got killed. This poor worker loses his job all because he spoke out about how the Dems were fleecing him. FYI I told the manager that I was going to spend my money elsewhere. Its the Edwards Shop'n'save in Hampden Maine. Go shopping at Super Wal-mart in Brewer its better. Also Edwards buys products from Hannaford's which gives to leftwing causes so there's another reason.
The second incident happened six months ago last fall. Me and another guy were at Newport Maine holding a small support the troops rally. It was me him and one other guy. We were holding signs and american flags near the shopping center and bowling ally when these two moonbats showed up and began harassing us. They were college kids probably from Orono and they began yelling at us calling us Fascists and racists and telling us to get out. They left and came back 30 minutes later with two other moonbats who began to yell and argue and one said that America was a fascist capitalist nation that should be destroyed and another began shouting anti american slogans as well. Then they started trying to rip our signs and our flags away from us and even hitting us. We only pushed them away and then they began yelling that we were assaulting them and that they would call the police. Sure enough a cop drove by inquiring what was happening and one of the perps walked up and made accusations that we were assaulting them using bad language and other lies. I told the cop we were holding a small rally to support our boys in Iraq and that they were disrupting us and that we wanted to press charges. i showed them one of my signs that was damaged but instead he told us to leave. He said we were too close to private property and got complaints about us being disruptive. He told us to move and showed us a place away from traffic that we could protest. he did nothing about the moonbat liberals and refused to arrest them. Our rally was relocated where there weren't many vehicles passing by near a hardware store. there weren't that many people who saw us. About an hour later the one of the moonbats came back, called us all nazis and other names and told us to go back to nazi Germany. He threw rocks at us for awhile shouted obscenities, got tired and left. Sometime later the cop returned with this woman cop in two cruiser and told us that the rally was over and that we had to leave. He said we were being disruptive to the community and that there were complaints that we were being combative to pedestrians. (the moonbats no doubt.) and that we had to leave. I explained that we had a constitutional right to gather and rally behind our soldiers in Iraq and that we were the ones attacked. Instead the woman became beligerant and told us this protest was closed and that we had to leave or we would be charged with disturbing the peace and assault. We closed down since it was evening by now. I sometimes regret doing it.
the third incident took place a month ago in Bangor. At the bus depot in pickering square, homeless bums like to congregate, panhandle and make trouble. Sometimes I run into a few of them drinking and doing drugs, talking to themselves, another time they rob the vending machines. They're not allowed to loiter there but they do anyway and one night they snuck into the restrooms and camped there. Before leaving they smeared the walls of the restroom with feces. It reminded me of an episode of south park yet this really happened, they knew the six bums who did it but they did nothing. The restrooms are now closed and still are even now. I remember bringing it up with a woman working at the depot and complained about the homeless causing problems. I had this drunk old guy in my face telling me FU and go F yourself and stuff and he was wandering the depot harrasing everyone and muttering giberish. I complained several times to this woman there about the homeless problem over several days. One time I complained about this guy spiting at people going to the buses and she told me, "That's racist! These poor people have no place else to go! It's not their fault their poor! Have some compasion and respect. First of all, Maine has all these BIG programs, shelters, and handouts and entitlements and stuff, second, most dont want to work and would rather be homeless, third, for most it is their fault and it's the state of Maine's fauld because most jobs are taxed and regulated out of the state. Im like, "Excuse me but there are rules against loitering and they are being beligerant and disruptive." She didn't listen.
The fourth incident that happened involved a freind of mine who used to live here a year ago. He was working but had trouble making ends meet. His father who is this moonbat tried to force him to go on SSI. he had 8000$ in his bank account and his father who was abusive tried to force him to get rid of all of it to go on SSI. He said he was stupid, had no social skills and that he didn't know anything. The father BTW is a leftist who is pro-choice, pro-amnesty, supported the minimum wage hike and even supports leftwing groups like Amnesty international and Planned parent hood. Im not kidding! He tried to get this case worker to help him force him to spend down his money, the case worker took his side but he refused. He had to quit his job and leave because he couldn't take it anymore. He's in the midwest now in Kansas. He's doing much better than he did before.
Well that's it. I thought I'd just write about this since I had nothing else to do today and I've been thinking about it alot and wanted to get it off my chest. The moral of the story is that liberals are not as open minded as you may think. If you cant get it by now you got a problem.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Barack Obama and Democrats are practicing censorship and tyranny

Barack Obama and the Left want to dictate what we are allowed to view, surf, or listen to. The left in the past decade were up in arms over Bush's illegal use of torture and other issues. They also accused Bush of establishing a right wing dictatorship in the name of combating terror. Never mind that The left have been the ones eroding our constitutional liberties and religious Judeo Christian values that made us free and mighty.

It may be true that Bush was wrong to monitor political opponents like PETA or Answer, (Honestly, what a waste of taxpayer resources going after those two schmucks when there are plenty of extremely militant leftists and Muslims in our soilant) but the Democrats including President Clinton have been doing it for over a decade monitoring Christian and Pro American groups deriding them as extremist simply because they don't want the government meddling in their lives.

Bush is gone and will be gone officially in a matter of days making way for the rule of Barack Obama. Barack Obama and the left are already getting ready to clamp down and muzzle free speech and make it harder for Americans to own firearms for self defense. Worldnetdaily has reported that Obama's new administration have already made headway in silencing criticism of his new regime and his past communist policies.

In a previous article I discussed Internet neutrality. I showed how both McCain, Obama and Clinton differed. Mccain for example was on the side of Big Business, (Which is in the pockets of the Dems BTW) In allowing them to create a monopoly that would effectively block content on the Internet, relegating it to the status of TV where our choices of what to surf would be severely restricted and certain topics and subjects censored. Obama has stated he advocates Net Neutrality where government butts in and imposes rules similar to the fairness doctrine forcing web masters of certain websites to court those of opposing viewpoints. Hillary Clinton On the Other hand wants state control of all media especially the Internet. She even stated it was in response to criticism against her husband.

Obama is taking it even further though. Obama now wants international rules governing what we are allowed to watch and read. He and British MP Andy Burnham are in negotiations with the FCC and the UN to dictate international rules for website in order to protect children from what they deem to be harmful content. IE: New Ideas, civil liberties, religious faith, dissent and other viewpoints. The new rules would specifically be aimed at English websites. No plans are made against Arabic websites advocating murder of non Muslims. that will no doubt be acceptable as opposed to the ideas of individual liberty. Obama has after all said that government has the right to infringe on our liberties.

Obama wants other countries to dictate what we are allowed to know and watch. The first amendment will be knocked over in favor of politically correct views of the multicultural neo pagan and international leftists.

Obama's hostility towards the first amendment has also gone into talk radio and political websites. The new administration and Google are believed responsible for the removal of two news articles and several videos on YouTube critical of Obama. Time Warner also censored another YouTube video that explained how the democrats caused the current economic crisis with a bill passed under Carter that forced banks to make loans to poor people who could not pay it back.

Obama has also targeted radio hosts. Martin Dzuris, a former Czech dissident and opponent of liberalism has had his hours slashed because he dared speak out against Obama. Dzuris explained in a lengthy interview with WND he attended at least one meeting where radio station officials discussed specifically how to reduce Dzuris' criticism of Obama, which has linked Obama's statements taken directly from his speeches to Marxism.

Political activists in Michigan have demanded that station WRHC remove him because he criticised Obama. Supporters called in making death threats. Other radio stations face attacks simply because they oppose Obama and his Marxist policies and for speaking out about his past history. Attempts were made especially against Rush Limbaugh with a push called Hush rush.

Now imagine the horror if Republicans used the exact same tactics against Liberals who dared speak out against Bush and the war? There would have been 24/7 condemnations the world over and we would hear no end of it for at least a century. Barack Obama on the other hand gets a pass since he's a leftist.

Its amazing that Bush has been portrayed as a fascist and a warmonger while Barack Obama is allowed to get away with destroying our very freedoms. Even If Barack Obama were to call on congress to declare war on every nation in the world and use WMDs, the left would be more than willing to continue to march lock step on his side.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Just Couldn't think of a better way of saying it, happy new year! Lets pray that 2009 is a better year and that the coming decade better than the last.