World War II Sweethearts Reunite After 7 Decades Apart

Leave a comment

This is from Mental Floss.

True love may get sidetracked and even separated but it never dies.

Though their lives diverged more than seven decades ago, Norwood Thomas, 93, and Joyce Morris, 88, never forgot each other. The World War II veteran and his wartime girlfriend met just before D-Day in London, and quickly fell for each other. After the war, they exchanged letters from opposite sides of the Atlantic, but ultimately married other people.

Now, the former sweethearts are finally reuniting. After decades of marriage, both Morris and Thomas are currently single, according to Time. (Thomas is a widower, while Morris is divorced.) Morris, who lives in Australia, had her son track down Thomas, who lives in America, online. The two have been chatting via Skype for some time.

To some degree, Morris and Thomas’s love story is also an illustration of how radically the internet has changed relationships and communication. The pair’s postal correspondence ended because of a long-distance misunderstanding. Now, the existence of the Internet has not only re-connected them in virtual space, but made it possible for them to see each other face to face.

After reading about Morris and Thomas’s love story online, hundreds of people donated money to help them purchase plane tickets and make travel arrangements. This week, Thomas finally made the journey from America to Australia. The two will be spending Valentine’s Day together. When asked how he felt about the reunion, Thomas responded, “This is about the most wonderful thing that could have happened to me.”

[h/t Time]


Can’t Fix Stupid: Teacher’s Horrific, Anti-Semitic Comment to Student

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

I am at a loss for words.

anti sem


Teachers are supposed to be the responsible authority. They take a symbolic oath when they become a teacher to educate your children in reading, writing, and arithmetic as well as being a trusted mentor. Maybe in London, they don’t have this view of what a teacher should embody.

North London Collegiate School, a posh, all girls school known for its “hoity toity” atmosphere and well-to-do students, is a breeding ground for the elite and privileged. Founded in 1850, it was the first school to offer the same equal educational opportunities as boys received, making it revolutionary for its time. With all of the prestige and stamina that embodies the school, their image may be in turmoil as a huge scandal is brewing.

One of the teachers working at the school made a reprehensible anti-Semitic comment to one of its female students. The girl unhooked one of the ropes in the lunch line so that she could cut to the front. One of the teachers saw what she had done and rushed up to her; making a horrific comment to the young girl (who happened to be Jewish) quoting: “Don’t do that or I’ll have to send you to the back of the queue, or to one of your gas chambers!”

Yes, you read that correctly, folks!!The comment was from a place of what would appear to be pure hate and disdain, referencing the acts of pure evil where 6 million Jews had perished. Several of the girl’s friends overheard the teacher and reacted in shock and amazement commenting if he “actually said that!?” Another family reported the incident to the Community Security Trust, which deals with allegations of anti-Semitism in Great Britain who are working with all parties involved to resolve the matter.

The accused teacher has privately apologized to the student, whose identity is being protected, but the parents are not satisfied with the proposed resolution saying:
“The school doesn’t deserve to be in the middle of a race issue. It is normally a model of correctness in these things. But there should be an element of visibility so people see the teacher has been disciplined. My wife and I would also like the school to make a public statement that there has been an incident and [the remark] was totally unacceptable.”

Roughly 20 to 25 percent of the schools pupils are Jewish, including some higher-profile attendees such as Rachel Weisz and Vogue editor Anna Wintour.  In the world we live in today, one may be able to back pedal and try and talk their way out of many things to make them right again. But no matter how hard you try, you just can’t fix stupid!

Image: Courtesy of:



The “Economics” Of Individual Liberty And The Second Amendment

1 Comment

This is from JPFO.

This is something to think about.

By L. Neil Smith,
The Libertarian Enterprise. December 13th 2013

Prepared for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. © JPFO. Inc 2013

The late, unlamented twentieth century will be remembered in the future, principally for two things, the two biggest, most destructive inter-governmental conflicts in history, and the number of innocent individuals (more than 100 million) slaughtered wholesale by their own governments.

For anyone with two gray cells to rub together, this is the final, inarguable proof of the dire necessity of the people to keep and bear arms.

The twentieth century was also the century of socialism, a school of political economy which asserts that the interests of a single individual are of less importance (if they’re of any importance at all) than the interests of the group, whoever the group turns out to be. Those who successfully claim to speak for the group are then free to do anything they wish with the life, liberty, and property of the individual.

Socialism has never been limited to Russia and China, or a few European or Asian nations. Wherever the interests of the individual are sacrificed to those of the group, there you have socialism. The great libertarian philosopher Robert LeFevre maintained that, to any extent a society has any public sector” at all — funded by wealth taken by force or the threat of force from the individuals who created it, in violation of their rights — to that extent it is a socialist society.

Those three signature phenomena of the twentieth century, widespread war, slaughter, and socialism are not unrelated. Under socialism, mass murder and other such atrocities are inevitable and unavoidable, much like the law of gravity, and the sun rising in the east.

Here’s why:

There is a fundamental observation within the field of economics called the “Law of Marginal Utility”. The concept is highly important to human survival, prosperity, and progress; among other things, for uncounted thousands of years, it has made peaceful trade possible among killer apes. It isn’t really a law — economics isn’t really a science — and it actually has more to do with psychology (which is not a science either) than it does with anything else. The Law of Marginal Utility is a statement about the way people look at certain things.

It works like this: Marginal Utility holds that the more you have of any one commodity, the less value you tend to assign to any single unit of it. Imagine you’re a Paleolithic hunter who just killed and cut up an aurochs, a sort of giant prehistoric longhorn cow, yielding around 3000 pounds of meat that you now have to do something useful with.

A friend, who has also just killed an aurochs, and now has the same problem you do, drops by offering you a couple of pounds. You can remember hard times in which two pounds of meat might have meant the difference between living and starvation, but you politely turn him down.

In fact, when a second neighbor visits, complaining that he doesn’t have enough meat to feed his kids, you give him some of yours because it isn’t that big a deal. You have so much you’ll never get around to eating it all. Of course you can’t do this for everybody, or you won’t have anything left for your own family. But that’s a political problem for the future. Just now you ask him not to tell anyone about your generosity.

Yet another neighbor, who prefers gathering to hunting, drops by, griping that this year’s yield of beebleberries was so abundant that she now has baskets of the damn things she doesn’t know what to do with.

One of you gets a bright idea: swap some meat for beebleberries. What makes it a bright idea is that you have so much meat, you value any particular pound of it less than your neighbor, who has no meat. Your neighbor, on the other hand, has so many beebleberries that she values any particular basket of them less than you do, who has no beebleberries.

This is the Law of Marginal Utility at work. I makes possible an exchange of valuable commodities in which everybody wins. (Marxists would insist that such a thing is impossible, that one of you must have exploited the other somehow, but they won’t be able to tell you which.)

By now, you’re probably wondering what all this has to do with the individual right to own and carry weapons. In this connection it’s very important — in fact it’s the whole point of this essay — to understand that there are certain commodities to which this “law” doesn’t apply at all, mostly because they aren’t really commodities. Any pound or basket of them is not exactly like any other pound or basket.

An example that comes to mind (to my mind, anyway), is original paintings by Vincent van Gogh. If I had a hundred of them, that would not reduce my desire or regard for the hundred and first, because they are in no way interchangeable. Each is absolutely unique. And we would properly regard anyone who bought and piled Van Gogh paintings up like cordwood, and measured their value by the height of the pile, as a barbarian.

Human lives are like paintings by Vincent van Gogh. Each and every one is absolutely unique — more unique, if possible (grammatically, it’s not supposed to be) than even the finest, rarest work of art. And there are more reasons to come to that conclusion than can possibly be counted.

But they can be estimated.

To begin, each of us is genetically different from one another, each of us the result of billions of possible genetic permutations and combinations. Although we tend to resemble our parents and their parents in many ways, each generation is a fresh roll of the genetic dice.

It’s a lot better than simply splitting like an amoeba, resulting in two organisms with identical genetic complements. A species whose members bring a slightly different set of attributes to the problems life presents them with has a better chance of surviving longer. Once nature’s “got your number”, as it were, uniformity (or conformity) is death.

So we all differ from one another genetically.

Each of us, as well, has had a lifetime of different experiences, which have imprinted themselves on our personalities, altering them, helping to make us precisely who and what we are. Moreover, each of us regards each of those experiences in different ways, attaching, either consciously or unconsciously, different levels of significance to them.

Thus we all differ from one another in our experiences.

Finally, we are all the result, in part, of things we have chosen to do, say, think, and, to a degree, feel — all acts of free will, which Ayn Rand said consists of only one choice: to focus the mind or not to focus it. How many times has the average individual made such a choice?

We all differ from one another in our choices.

Now, multiply the number of genetic possibilities times the number of different experiences we’ve had (and the ways we’ve interpreted them), times the acts of free will that have shaped us. For all practical purposes, the ways in which each of us is unique approaches infinity.

Each individual human being is absolutely unique, and vastly rarer — and more irreplaceable — than the rarest work of art. Thus it is a basic tenet of the Austrian School — the heart and soul of the study of free market economics — that you can’t quantify human beings or their behavior, and that mathematics, especially statistics, is sadly inadequate to the task of understanding what people do or why they do it.

Now here’s the thing: socialists don’t see it that way. To them, statistics is the key to understanding history and human nature. Human beings are just like batteries to them, or bottles rolling off an assembly line somewhere, In a world of seven billion human beings, in a nation of 330 million, Marginal Utility rules. Any given individual counts for nothing. With a little training, any human being can be unplugged, discarded, and replaced by practically any other human being.

When human beings come to be perceived, by socialist politicians, by socialist bureaucrats, by socialist policemen, by socialist judges, by socialist academics, and by socialist media, as nothing more than indistinguishable, interchangeable units of a commodity, then any public manifestation of individuality — let alone individualism — is seen as a threat to be managed. So terrifying do they find it, that they have spent billions of dollars and millions of man-years in order to delegate the recognition and acknowledgment of individuality to machines.

Little wonder that, when the socialist elite decide that not enough of those seven billion units are serving socialist interests, they come to the conclusion that the great majority of them can be discarded. It happened in Armenia, in Nazi Germany, in Soviet Russia, in Red China, in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and it was almost always preceded by sweeping gun confiscation — or to a population already long since disarmed.

Little wonder, too, that the idea that vast numbers among those seven billion indistinguishable, interchangeable units — mainly the 100 million Americans who own “750 million firearms of modern design, in good working order” — might not want to be discarded, and are capable of successfully resisting it, fills socialists with fury and terror.

Now I’m not really an economic determinist, but you need very little else besides the so-called “law” of Marginal Utility to understand and explain the inexpressible horrors of the twentieth century.

Or the compelling need for each and every one of us who refuse to see ourselves as “indistinguishable”, “interchangeable” units to be equipped to defend our “insignificant” and “thoroughly expendable” lives.

Author and lecturer L. Neil Smith is Senior Editorial Consultant for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. A fifty-year veteran of the libertarian movement, he is the Author of 33 books including The Probability Broach, Ceres, Sweeter Than Wine, And Down With Power: libertarian Policy In A Time Of Crisis. He is also the Publisher of The Libertarian Enterprise, now in its 17th year online.

Here is why Sharia Law has no place in Britain or elsewhere

1 Comment

This is from The National Secular Society.

This young woman speaks from experience.

We cannot let these goat humping savages spread this

vile crap known as Sharia Law.

There are many reasons why this needs to be said, starting with a personal trigger. I was recently interviewed by Channel 4’s programmewhich was broadcast two weeks ago about my opinions on ‘What does Sharia Law have to offer Britain’. I realised that I was the only one out of seven people interviewed that was clearly against Sharia and for a secular state. Activist and gay Muslim Omar Kuddus who was also interviewed regarding the same topic, agreed that ‘Sharia’ discriminates against homosexuals and would threaten his safety and civil rights.

My interview has triggered a debate in the Sudanese media, both at home and in the diaspora, from which campaigns have emerged inciting people against me calling me a ‘Kafira’ (infidel) and ‘Murtadda’ (left Islam) . I guess Sudanese government officials have time to watch Channel 4 because the Sudanese Armed Forces’ Facebook page posted my picture declaring me an infidel and apostate. Who knew that my private beliefs could denigrate a country’s government, religion, and armed forces?!

Focusing on Islam and Sharia as such here is mainly because of my experience living under an Islamic regime. However, I strongly oppose Sharia law as well as any other religious based laws because I deeply believe in secular, humanist values which put each human being on an equal basis with every other individual. International human rights are a testament to that principle and stand directly opposed to the discriminatory practices enshrined in and justified by Sharia law.

It is important that we secularists demand not only a secular Britain, but also a secular Middle East, North Africa, and world. Sharia as such is a law of a religion with state power in many regions around the world. We have also witnessed in the last two years a grand hijacking by Islamists of the achievements of civil society in the Middle East. Not only that, but here in Britain there are now 85 Sharia councils implementing Sharia law on the streets of London, Birmingham, Bradford and elsewhere.

It is important for me to clarify what I mean by Sharia. To be precise, I am discussing the laws and legislation which are already in practice in the UK and abroad, not theoretical or utopian ideas that only exist in the minds of those who defend and are usually in favour of Sharia. The examples below include Islamic laws in countries around the world that claim to be implementing Sharia — the right Sharia — and are legislated based on the main sources in Islam, the Quran and Hadith, and sometimes in Fatwas. What is clear from an anthropological perspective is that these interpretations are performed by those in power and as a result the application and punishments associated with Sharia vary dramatically around the world.

One: Women
Sharia discriminates against women (and Muslim women specifically): compared to feminist victories elsewhere, women are still not considered equal in most Islamic settings. A woman’s testimony is worthy half a man’s in Islam. She gets half the inheritance of her male siblings; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation using the word “Talig”, whereas a woman must give specific reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a pre-set age, even if the father is abusive. Women who remarry lose custody of their children.

These are real issues of inequality and discrimination that Muslim women face every day. I have personally experienced some because according to the Sharia constitution in Sudan, I am only eligible for half of my brothers’ share of our inheritance and I need at least two women to one man to testify in court cases. Other brutal examples end in punishment by stoning crimes such as Iranian Sakineh Ashtiani who was accused of having a relationship outside of an ‘Islamic contract marriage’, or the public flogging of Sudanese Lubna Husseinfor her un-Islamic dress.

Another issue is marital rape, honour killings and domestic violence: in Pakistan, there are 300 cases of acid burnt women with no charges pressed against their husbands. Here in the UK, a study reported by the One Law for All campaign shows that 4 out of 10 women in Sharia court cases were party to civil injunctions against their husbands. The One Law for All campaign as well as other groups like Secularism Is a Women’s Issue are among the frontline defenders campaigning against Sharia courts, fighting for women’s rights and demanding gender equality.

Two: Children
Sharia discriminates against children. Not only does it affect children when they are young, but the implications will last their entire life. Top of the list is child marriage. Under Sharia law, a girl is eligible for marriage as soon as a girl begins her first period. This makes it difficult to maintain a minimum age for girls to be married. Considering there were at least five cases recorded in the London Borough of Islington (including girls of only 9 years old), I wouldn’t bother to count the number of child marriages in Islamic states where it is legal.

Other discrimination against children that must be considered is the lack of exposure to different ideas and thoughts. Children from an Islamic background are often taught to close their minds to new ideas and some are brought up to hate their Jewish, Christian and Hindu classmates, as well as any gay students in their class.

In addition to my own experiences at school in Sudan, one can grab any school curriculum from an Islamic state see how it restricts critical thinking and any questioning of religious doctrine. Evolutionary theory is banned from most educational systems in Islamic states, as it contradicts the creationist story in the Quran. Sudanese professor, Faroque Ahmed Ibrahim, stated in his open letter that teaching evolution at University of Khartoum was among the main reasons he was tortured and imprisoned by the Sudanese government. Moreover, little girls are often taught from birth that they are ‘lesser’ human beings, which results in lower self-esteem and lack of confidence later in life. It is however, the case with most other faith-based schools and education including Christianity and Judaism which, sadly, have the same ‘holy-centralised‘ ideology.

Three: Homosexuals
Sharia discriminates against homosexuals. On this particular issue, Islam, as well as Christianity and Judaism, hold the same intolerant view. Homosexuality is forbidden in most Islamic states with punishments ranging from a fine or public flogging to life imprisonment. Ten Islamic states impose a death penalty for homosexuals, including Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen and some states in Malaysia. In 2011, governmental driven gangs have been killing gays across Iraq.

Four: Non-Muslims
Sharia discriminates against non-Muslims, including other sects within Islam such as Bahia’s, Ahmadia’s, and Shia if under Sunni ruling government or the reverse. Under Sharia law, no one is allowed to force someone to convert to Islam, however, someone who is born into an Islamic family will grow up with extreme social pressure from their family. If this person wishes to convert to another religion or be an atheist, they are often considered an apostate, which can be punishable by death. Non-Muslims are subjected to extra taxes (‘Jezya’) and are afforded fewer rights in civic and family matters. For example, non-Muslim men (except Jewish and Christians) cannot marry Muslim women, while children of non-Muslim women cannot adopt their religion. Serious violence has occurred targeted at non-Muslim minorities in Islamic countries, such as the bombing of Coptic in Egypt or the attack of eight churches in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 2011.Although some of these groups operate as separate fundamental extremists who don’t necessary represent mainstream Islam or the ruling Islamic governments, these same groups operate in their territory and are protected by the local governments.

Five: Non-Believers and Atheists
Sharia discriminates against non-believers, atheists and apostates. It truly disgusts me that apostasy and blasphemy laws are still in practice in some regions of the world. Did you know that free thinking and freedom of speech are a crime punishable by death, public flogging and imprisonment in the 21st century? I have seared in my memory the brutal persecutions and executions of many atheists and scientists for the simple crime of critical thinking.

Cases such as Iranian Ali Ghorabat for apostasyJafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haji Aghaee for enmity against GodSudanese theologian Mahmoud M. Taha for his progressive Islamic views and Egyptian Nasr H. Abu Zaid for his critical views on the Qur’an show the widespread persecution of people who dare to question blind belief.

This is not a thing of the past: just this month Kuwait jailed Abdel Aziz Mohamed Albaz for criticizing Islam, Saudi Arabia jailed Raif Badawi for his liberal views, Tunisian artist Nadia Jelassi is facing prison for her ‘un-Islamic’ artistic pieces. Countries like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen implement the death penalty for those who renounce or criticize Islam, but they also punish anyone who is progressive, liberal or wishes to think freely and live a modern, 21st century life.

Being an atheist and an ex-Muslim should have been a private matter for me under a secular state. However, under an ‘Islamic Inquisition’ as fellow secular campaigner Maryam Namazi describes, it became necessary for dissenters, especially those who are persecuted, to publicly air our views and call for equal treatment because this persecution will not end until we stand together and speak out. I chose to speak out on Channel 4 and in many other venues in the UK because I cannot stand by and watch others suffer the same discrimination and persecution that I faced. The current persecution of the five groups I discussed above, both here in the UK and around the world, provide a duty for everyone to stand up for the simple principle: all humans are equal.

For me, my atheism holds this broader meaning because I am taking a political stand to oppose mythology and advocate for evidence-based science and critical thinking. My stand is a way of supporting freedom of expression, freedom of religion or no-religion. I stand, indeed, for human rights in order to support equal rights for all citizens despite our gender, age, sexuality, religion or ethnicity.

I believe this is everyone’s battle, including progressive, secular and liberal Muslims. The right to live, think and express freely your opinions is one of the great achievements of human civilization. These values belong to all of us regardless of our background or geographical regions. We cannot limit these achievements to ‘western values’ or ‘cultural sensitivity’.

We must each strongly and unequivocally demand one equal law for everyone – both in the UK and abroad. Let’s make sure the next generation of freethinkers does not have to suffer condemnation online or offline, face jailing, public flogging or death.


US steps up efforts to break Guantánamo hunger strike


This is from The U.K.Daily Guardian.

I say let these goat humping morons die.

Then shove a pork bone in their mouths and burn their

 stinking bodies.

If you want to break the strike with these animals watching

rub some bacon on some rounds.

Then tell them if they do not eat they will be shot with the

pork covered bullets.

But we know this regime does not have the gonads to do this.


Shaker Aamer, last British resident held in camp, tells of harsh regime to break strikers’ resistance

Increasingly brutal tactics are being used in an attempt to break the hunger strike by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, according to fresh testimony from the last British resident still held in the camp.

Shaker Aamer claims that the US authorities are systematically making the regime more hardline to try to defuse the strike, which now involves almost two-thirds of the detainees. Techniques include making cells “freezing cold” to accentuate the discomfort of those on hunger strike and the introduction of “metal-tipped” feeding tubes, which Aamer said were forced into inmates’ stomachs twice a day and caused detainees to vomit over themselves.

The 46-year-old from London tells of one detainee who was admitted to hospital 10 days ago after a nurse had pushed the tube into his lungs rather than his stomach, causing him later to cough up blood. Aamer also alleges that some nurses at Guantánamo Bay are refusing to wear their name tags in order to prevent detainees registering abuse complaints against staff.

Speaking last week from the camp in Cuba, exactly four months after he joined the hunger strike, Aamer said: “The administration is getting ever more angry and doing everything they can to break our hunger strike. Honestly, I wish I was dead.”

The momentum behind efforts to release Aamer – who has spent more than 11 years without trial inside the camp – mounted sharply last week with David Cameron raising the issue directly with the US president, Barack Obama, during the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

On Wednesday, in a response to a parliamentary question about what had been discussed by the two leaders, Cameron revealed that his next step would be to write to Obama about the “specifics of the case and everything that we can do to expedite it”. He added: “Clearly, President Obama wants to make progress on this issue and we should help him in every way that we can with respect to this individual.”

The prime minister’s comments are the most positive indication to date that Aamer will eventually be freed – he has been cleared for release twice since 2007.

Clive Stafford Smith, the director of the legal charity Reprieve, who passed a transcript of his conversation with Aamer to the Observer, said: “These gruesome new details show just how bad things are in Guantánamo. The whole thing is at breaking point. Clearly the US military is under enormous pressure and doing everything it can to hurt the men and break the hunger strike.”

Although the military initially denied that there was a hunger strike inside Guantanámo, it now concedes that, of the 166 detainees, 104 are on hunger strike and 44 are being force-fed.

Aamer also documents his declining health and how the camp’s regime deliberately inflates the weight of detainees on hunger strike. Aamer, who has permission to live in the UK indefinitely because his wife is a British national, said: “They said I was 160lb, but I was 154lb a few days ago. Unless there has been a miracle, my weight has not gone up without eating. But they cheat by adding shackles and sometimes even pressing down as they do it to add to your weight.

“If you have a medical standard for when a detainee should be force-fed for his own health, then force-feed him when it can still save his health. Don’t wait until his body is so harmed by the lack of food that all you are protecting is the US military – from the harm of a prisoner dying for a principle.”

Aamer describes his daily diet at Guantánamo as a cup of tea or two each day with a low-calorie sweetener and occasionally an Ocean Spray powder mix that has 10 calories – enough to give an energy boost.


The Greedy Green Prince Who Just Won’t Go Away

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

Toad (Al) Gore has disgraced himself first in 2000 during

the presidential election.

Then with his fake movie inconvenient truth about

globull warming.

Then selling his TV network to Al Jazerra.

It is time for him to shut up and go away. 


gore bare naked

Once upon a time, in a country of decent and hard working people, there lived a politician who sought adoration, money, and power. But, alas and alack, although he put forth his best effort and presented his oh-so-sincere speeches (with his lovely wife at his side) far and wide across the land, ultimately he suffered an election defeat at the hands of a grammatically challenged candidate who struggled to pronounce difficult words like “new-clar” (meaning nuclear).

Well ratz! To keep himself in the public eye, the attention-starved politician flip-flopped from politics to pollution and reinvented himself as the Prince of Green, protector of all things green including trees, algae, and Kermit. He denounced the evils of big oil, supported energy generated by shrimp on treadmills, and created a global warming scheme that generated buckets of green back dollars and turned him into a “fat cat,” financiallyand physically.

He tirelessly promoted himself while pontificating to save the planet even though legitimate scientific evidence proved that Earth was moving through a normal cycle of change and really, truly didn’t need saving. Irregardless of the truth, the Prince of Green sold millions of copies of his book, built a carbon-gobbling mansion, produced a documentary designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of viewers, received a gold Oscar, and a divorce—in that order.

In order to sell more books, “Earth First” bumper stickers and t-shirts, and his green agenda, the Prince of Green launched his very own cable network, Current TV. Unfortunately, the uber-left progressives and fruit-loop environmentalists he hired to represent his viewpoints attracted few viewers and even fewer greenback dollars. The prince decided to dump the network—speedy quick—since capital gains taxes were about to increase.

It just so happened that, at that exact time, a Prince of Truth (who loved his country and supported faith, family, and freedom), desired to expand his media reach and inquired about purchasing Current TV. But, since the Prince of Truth’s radio and television programs had exposed inconvenient facts about the schemes launched by the Prince of Green, his purchase overtures were refused. The reason given? Philosophical differences.

Soon thereafter, Muslim oil sheiks who also owned Al Jazerra TV, entered the bidding war. The oil-rich robber barons offered sufficient buckets of green backs to satisfy the greedy appetite of the Prince of Green. Never-you-mind that Al Jazeera was Al Qaedas’ favorite network and spewed forth hate-filled diatribes to champion extermination of Jews, homosexuals, Israel, and all non-Muslim infidels. The Prince flip-flopped again, and became the Prince of Greed as he jumped into bed with those whom he had previously cursed as “fossil fuel merchants of death.”

Gore and Money bag

(The Prince of Greed justified the sale by calling it a vital step to “enhance dialogue” between countries and individuals with “shared goals and visions.”)

Americans, especially his former supporters said, “Tch! Tch! Tch! Just goes to show which side of the toast the Prince of Girth butters and over consumes.”

For $100 million greenbacks (his personal share of the take) the Prince of Greed gave America haters instant access into millions of homes in the country they were dedicated to destroy. They now could deliver brainwashing programs to influence pimply teenage boys to strap on home-made bombs, proclaim “Allah Akbar” (God is greatest) and blow themselves to smithereens in crowded pizza parlors.

So, how did the Prince of Greed spend his $100 Million Dollars? Did he experience a flip flop of conscience and hire Sherlock Holmes to search the far corners of the planet for his lost moral compass?  Did he hire a public relations firm to redeem his damaged reputation as the green traitor who betrayed his country for 30 pieces of silver?

Say what? Are you kidding?

The Prince of GrGore and Carbon Credits Cardeed flipped his middle finger at his critics and declared “no big friggin’ deal.” He poured his oil blood money into another fantastical scam (carbon credits) that ultimately would tax people, factories, and farting cows for the carbon dioxide they released into the atmosphere.

Did he live happily ever? Who knows? Who really cares?

One thing for sure, the Prince of Greed became the most succe$$ful and filthy rich former American vice-presidentand failed presidential candidate of all time.


HAVA Fundraiser…

Leave a comment

A Hat Tip to Old NFO.

If you can Please chip in a few bucks it is a great cause.

Linoge over at Walls of the City is running a fund raiser for HAVA, and he’s asked for some help in getting the word out.

He’s not up to the amount raised for Soldier’s Angels last year, but he’s getting there.

The original request is HERE, and the update is HERE

Honored American Veterans Afield IS an outstanding charity, and is primarily sponsored by USA Shooting and the NRA.

As the number of injured men and women returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan grew, members of the firearms industry initiated a non-profit partnership called HAVA to aid disabled soldiers as they transition to their lives back in the United States. The ultimate goal is to increase their confidence and hope for the future by reconnecting with their love of the outdoors and the American traditions of hunting and firearms.

If you can spare a few bucks, please help Linoge get his $1500 goal.  I threw some bucks in last night… It IS for a good cause!!!

European courts spare accused pedophile, hacker from American justice

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News World.

It is time to stop all aid to Europe.

Stop the food and money until they corporate with our LEO’s.

It would not take long for them to see the light.

America has been saving Europe’s ass since 1917.

Below is a picture of the POS mentioned in the story.

Shawn Sullivan.jpg

Shawn Sullivan is a fugitive and accused pedophile, and to some, he’s also a poster child for a European judicial system that often would rather let criminals roam their streets freely than see them subjected to American justice.

Nearly 20 years ago, Sullivan, who is now 43, fled to Ireland after being charged with raping a 14-year-old girl and molesting two boys in Minnesota. Sullivan, who had dual citizenship, was accused of assaulting two girls in Ireland in 1997, but fled to London, where police finally caught up with him in June 2010. Although he did time in Wandsworth Prison for his crimes in the United Kingdom, when U.S. authorities sought to have him brought to justice on American soil, a British judge refused.

The reason: The U.S. policy of committing repeat child molesters to civil confinement — where they are kept off the streets even after completing prison terms — was deemed too barbaric.

“Minnesota’s law is said to be more Draconian than many others,” Lord Justice Moses of England’s High Court of Justice said in his ruling in June of last year. “…it is clear to me that were an order of civil commitment to be made, it would be a flagrant denial of this appellant’s rights.”

Jeffrey Cramer, a former federal prosecutor who is now managing director of Kroll Advisory Solutions, told European courts are increasingly shielding criminals from U.S. penalties they consider too harsh.

“The European courts are starting to view U.S. courts as being so Draconian that it violates human rights,” said Cramer. “They’ve always felt this way pertaining to death penalty cases, but now we are seeing it more in fraud and sexual abuse cases.”

Sullivan’s case is one of several instances in which European — particularly British — courts have substituted their idea of justice for America’s, in what some see as a blatant disregard for the spirit, if not the letter, of extradition agreements.

— In November, Moses denied extradition for former Iranian Ambassador Nosratollah Tajik, who was arrested in London in a 2006 international sting operation conducted by U.S. Department of Homeland Security agents. After six years of delays, Moses discharged Tajik, who was trying to smuggle night vision goggles to Iran, saying extraditing him to the U.S. could hurt relations between the UK and Iran and endanger embassy staff in Tehran.

— A month earlier, Great Britain’s high court also blocked extradition of alleged hacker Gary McKinnon to the U.S., where he is accused of hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers. The ruling cited McKinnon’s battles with Asperger’s Syndrome and depression in determining that imprisonment in the U.S., where he faced up to 70 years in prison, could constitute a violation of his human rights. He is now free.

— In perhaps the most high-profile case of a European court denying U.S. access to a fugitive whose crimes were committed on American soil, filmmaker Roman Polanski avoided extradition from France on charges he raped a 13-year-old girl more than three decades ago. Swiss authorities finally nabbed him in 2010 at the request of U.S. prosecutors, but when it came time to send him to the U.S. to face justice, a judge there overruled it, citing a technicality.

Under the rule of non-inquiry, nations that have extradition agreements typically are not supposed to second-guess one another on procedures and due process, Bruce Zagari, an attorney with Washington-based firm Berliner Corcoran & Rowe, who specializes in international white collar crime, including extradition issues, told Zagari believes the policy of civil confinement and the U.S. policy toward detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have prompted European judges to no longer feel compelled to abide by the rule.

That means Shawn Sullivan, who has been accused of molesting children on two continents and married a British Ministry of Justice worker while in prison, can now roam free — as long as he stays out of the U.S.

“The British court has nevertheless denied the U.S. extradition request because of its concern that, if returned, Sullivan would not receive fair treatment because the Minnesota civil commitment program for sex offenders could deprive him of his freedom and fundamental rights if the UK was to extradite him,” Zagari said.

Cramer said Sullivan should be brought to justice in the U.S.

“I think any rational person would say that he [Sullivan] should come back,” said Cramer. “After all, he absconded.”

Read more:


Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says

Leave a comment

This is from

How many jobs will this tax destroy?

The Obama tax increases will just keep coming.

 Personally I say screw Europe and their dumb ass tax schemes. 


Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.

A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.

Hurricane Sandy sparked discussion on climate protection in the election after presidential candidates focused on other debates, HSBC said. A continued Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives means Obama’s scope for action will be limited, Robins said. Cap-and-trade legislation stalled in the U.S. Senate after narrowly passing the house in 2009.

North American discharges fell 1.3 percent last year amid slowing economic growth. In China, the world’s biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel use rose more than 9 percent in 2011, according to BP Plc (BP/) statistics published on June 13.

“Cap-and-trade has been demonized” and Obama probably won’t seek to install such a program in his second term, Richard Sandor, founder of the world’s biggest carbon trading exchange in Europe, said today at the presentation in London of his book titled Good Derivatives.

New carbon trading programs in California, China and Brazil may encourage U.S. lawmakers to introduce greenhouse gas trading by about 2020, Sandor said.

‘Moral Authority’

“We’ve lost our moral authority in the U.S.,” he said. “You haven’t here in Europe.”

Prices in the European Union carbon market, the world’s biggest by traded volume, dropped to a four-year low in April on surging supply and flagging demand.

Obama and the U.S. Congress should consider a carbon tax to help meet the government’s looming need for revenue, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in Arlington, Virginia.

The tax would not necessarily add to the economy’s total tax burden, according to Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the research group. Such a tax may free up space for reductions in company taxes that dissuade employment, for example, Diringer said in an interview from Arlington.

“We have lots of need for new revenue to address our challenges,” which include priorities for conservatives such as extending tax cuts, avoiding deep defense cuts, reducing the corporatetax rate, reforming tax territoriality, and deficit reduction, the group said today in an e-mailed statement.

“While Sandy’s lessons are still fresh, the president should be clear about the urgency of cuttingcarbon emissions and strengthening critical infrastructure to protect Americans against the rising costs of climate change,” the group said yesterday in a separate statement.



Dancing Nurses and Dead Brits

1 Comment

This is from American Thinker.

The opening ceremonies were a love fest for socialized medicine.

We were told about the bitter partisan fighting over health care.

I could not watch the tripe about socialized medicine being great.

If you have any active brain cells you know socialized medicine is a failure.

Regardless of futile attempts at liberal do-goodery, the goal on the left is always the same: constantly demanding undeserved praise for well-intentioned but failed acts of benevolent socialism.  That sort of predictable imagery-before-reality mentality was on display during the London 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremonies, where tribute was paid to the Brits‘ failing socialized National Health Service, affectionately known as the NHS.

The producer of the extravaganza, London resident and Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle, decided to integrate a choreographed tribute to the NHS into the showy opening festivities because, according to Boyle, “universal health care is one of the core values of British society” and an “amazing thing to celebrate.”

Sounding as if he was reading off Barack Obama’s teleprompter circa 2015, Danny Boyle also said, “One of the reasons we put the NHS in the show is that everyone is aware of how important the NHS is to everybody in this country. We believe, as a nation, in universal health care. It doesn’t matter how poor you are, how rich you are; you will get treated.”

Besides Slumdog Millionaire and Trainspotting, Boyle directed the movie Shallow Grave — a title more befitting the musical tribute to a health care system renowned for human suffering and premature death.  Bleeding-heart Boyle said this about the NHS: “It is something that is very dear to people’s hearts.”

The NHS may be “dear to people’s hearts,” all right, but probably not to the hearts of those who’ve experienced the horror of a loved one dying after being forced by bureaucrats to wait months for life-saving tests and treatment.

The whole eerie performance with nurses from Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital (GOSH) dressed in 1950s uniforms pushing around sick children bouncing around on oversized hospital beds was almost as sickening to watch as Barack Obama emerging from the Styrofoam Greek columns at INVESCO Field.

Let’s face it: in general, liberals are so proud of their accomplishments that to market their fantasy, they’d gladly don intricate costumes and push stage props around London’s Olympic Park.  The Brits did it at the Olympic opening ceremonies, and Barack Obama, harbinger of a similarly well-intentioned health care system that is similarly likely to fail, does it symbolically every time he promises the same type of medical quality and access that the NHS has proven for over 60 years is impossible to physically or financially maintain.

In an October 13, 2011 Mail Online article entitled “People are dying from lack of care. The NHS must be held to account,” “realist” Julia Manning, chief executive of 2020Health, wrote, “Of course we have much to be proud of in the NHS, but complacency and sentimentality have no place in an NHS in which people are dying for lack of care.”  Julia, how about dancing Florence Nightingales?  Do they have a place?

The truth is that while the NHS was sentimentally praising itself in front of the world, what the organization failed to mention was the minor detail that GOSH was the place where a 13-year-old boy named Arvind Jain died of malnutrition after waiting eight months for a complacent health care system to schedule a routine 30-minute procedure to insert a feeding tube into his stomach.  After the boy’s death, the NHS Health Service parliamentary ombudsman deemed that Arvind was “left to die in agony after ‘chaotic and substandard’ car[e].”

Meanwhile, while those 600 real-life nurses were celebrating shoddy health care at the London Olympics opening ceremony, in “free” hospitals all over Britain, patients both young and old might well have been dying of dehydration.

Back in 2001, in an article entitled “Why the NHS is bad for us,” Anthony Brown, former health editor of the U.K. Sunday publication the Observer and former “passionate believer in the NHS,” said of the National Health Service, “[I]t can never work and is only kept alive by wrong-headed idealism.”  Anthony Brown’s article brought to light many disturbing facts, one of which was the plight of elderly patients, some of whom, after lying for days on “trolleys” in NHS emergency wards, died needlessly.

Brown aptly summed up the liberal disease of “wrong-headed idealism,” which is a romantic philosophy that apparently disregards death while promoting systems that fail merely because, in the mind of a liberal, good intentions equal success.

Brown lamented that British citizens “die and suffer unnecessarily for different reasons, but there is just one root cause: the blind faith the Government has in the ideology of the National Health Service, and our unwillingness to accept not just that it doesn’t work, but that it can never work.”  And meanwhile, Danny Boyle is “celebrating.”

NHS detractors agree that although socialist-style health care may have laudable objectives, those objectives do not compensate for the appalling results.  In 2009, it was reported that approximately 300 patients died each year of malnutrition in British hospital wards.  The truth is that if the NHS wanted to commemorate an achievement, it should have been touting being the best at providing some of the worst health care on the planet.

Whether those merry dancing nurses realized it or not, they were representing a bankrupt system that relegates the very ill to waiting lists and denies drugs that are already paid for with the tax money of poor British citizens.  What the nurses promoted was a system that has been known to refuse patients basic human needs like food and water, forces the sick to wait until it’s too late for life-saving treatment, and effectively euthanizes 130,000 elderly people a year.  Nonetheless, based on what the world witnessed at the Olympics opening ceremonies, the NHS accomplishes all those atrocities with a rollicking sense of national pride.

Like communism, socialism, Marxism, and the newest edition to the lineup, Obamanism, the British health care system obviously perceives itself as well-intentioned, which liberals worldwide obviously translate into ample justification for playing God with other people’s lives.
Read more:

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: