rsdude8472's blog
Posted at 7:57pm on Mar. 24, 2008 Map of America According to Jeremiah Wright
By rsdude8472
In view of the statements made by Jeremiah Wright and a recent Redhot post, I present the following map (click for larger):
Read on for more explanation...
Posted in 2008 — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:23pm on Feb. 11, 2008 The New Atlantis: I read it.
By rsdude8472
I read Robert Zubrin’s article "Achieving Energy Victory" in The New Atlantis. I recommend it (fair warning - it is quite long). The article is concerned with OPEC’s artificial inflation of oil prices and the Saudi use of oil revenues to fund “the Islamist terror cult.” It claims we are not going to be able to stop “subsidizing a war against ourselves” by conservation (which to be effective would do great damage to our economy), but only through substitution, that is, replacing oil with something else. Zubrin’s solution is to mandate that all vehicles sold in the US be flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs). FFVs can run on gasoline, ethanol, methanol, or any mixture thereof. Thus the new cars would still work while the ethanol and methanol industries got ramped up. Since we can produce ethanol and methanol domestically, we can thus “Break OPEC’s Chains.” This is only supposed to cost manufactures $150 million dollars.
read on...
Posted in Energy — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:13am on Nov. 8, 2006 California Proposition 85 - Parental Notification
By rsdude8472
Unfortunately, this lost again (or at least looks almost certain to have), about 46 to 54. Maybe this is just a function of being in California. I think it is something else though.
I think, at least in part, its money. The week or two Planned Parenthood came out with an ad blitz against the prop. One would expect this, as it would surely cost them money. My question is, where were our ads? I heard a couple of National Right to Life ads on Monday on Rush's show against abortion in general, but not one ad that I saw anywhere in favor of the prop. I saw ads for my congressman and he won with 2/3 of the vote.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:47am on Oct. 16, 2006 A 4/11 Nation: Harry Truman's Legacy of Vietnam and Iraq
By rsdude8472
Tens of thousands of US troops fighting oversees with no end in sight. Two rogue states well on their way to developing nuclear weapons, each backed a major nuclear power. America seemingly impotent to do anything about it.
How did things get to this point?
In 1775 we went to war over what we felt were the infringement of our rights and an affront to our liberties. We stripped 13 colonies from the most powerful nation on the planet. When Mexican soldiers invaded our nation and killed our soldiers in 1846, we responded by taking half their country. We responded to attacks on our merchant ships in 1917 by sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Europe. Attacked in 1941, we invaded Africa, numerous Pacific Islands, tore through the Third Reich, and dropped nuclear weapons on Japan. We responded to the 1950 communist invasion of South Korea by conquering most of the North.
Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:54am on Jul. 7, 2006 Is freedom of the press outdated?
By rsdude8472
The First Amendment, granting freedom of the press, was ratified in 1791. This is generally understood to mean that the government cannot control what "the press" prints, says, etc. Surely the founders did not want the government stopping newspapers from criticizing them. But with our newspapers increasing doing the legwork of the intelligence-gathering branches of the enemies of America, is this protection outdated? While protecting small papers that had America's best interests in mind was a good idea, is it similarly a good idea to Constitutionally protect worldwide instantaneous distribution of information that damages the national security of the United States? Perhaps in the interest of America's survival, it is time to reconsider the First Amendment.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:06am on Jun. 30, 2006 The Case for Impeachment
By rsdude8472
The first paragraph of Justice Scalia's dissent in the Hamdan case:
On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, "no court, justice, or judge" shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statute's most natural reading, every "court, justice, or judge" before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.
Congress clearly made it illegal for the Court to do what they did today. The five justices (Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Kennedy) who ruled in the majority on this case clearly broke the law. Congress needs to send a message that SCOTUS is not above the law. Congress must not allow such an egregious violation of the Constitution by the Court. The Constitution provides an avenue to deal with justices who do not follow the law: Impeachment. The House MUST impeach Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Kennedy. The Senate MUST remove them. To do otherwise would undermine the very foundation of our democracy.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:50pm on May 11, 2006 Homosexual agenda advances in schools - SB1437 and SB1441 pass in California
By rsdude8472
This is really scary. Two bills, SB1437 and SB1441, passed out of the State Senate today. The first mandates the promotion of homosexuality in all public schools and prohibits any negative teaching about homosexuals or those of any non-traditional sexuality. The second creates special rights for those of any non-traditional sexuality, including freedom from "discrimination" (and with our judges, that could easily become any statement that is negative toward this group) by people who receive any money in any way from the state.
Read on:
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Read More »
