Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Zombie

Follow :

The Complete List of Everyone that Self-Proclaimed Sex-Abuser Lena Dunham Needs to Sue

Monday, November 3rd, 2014 - by Zombie

This morning, actress Lena Dunham threatened to sue the Web site Truth Revolt for publishing an article which quoted Dunham’s own autobiography in which she described repeatedly sexually abusing her younger sister.

Dunham’s lawyers demanded that Truth Revolt retract the story and publish an apology, to which the site’s editors replied:

We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a “false” story, even if she is a prominent actress and left-wing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book.

It is not an act of slander to note that Dunham repeatedly and unabashedly described sexually predatory behavior toward her own sister: what Truth Revolt (and dozens of other sites) did is simply recount what Dunham herself wrote (including the sentence, “Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.”)

But why pick Truth Revolt as the target of Dunham’s “rage spiral” (as she herself characterized it)? Truth Revolt was not the first, and certainly not the only site to point out that Dunham just confessed in print to being a child molester.

To help Lena Dunham’s legal team, here is a complete list of Web sites that she needs to sue, since every one of these sites also pointed out that Lena Dunham acted in a sexually predatory manner toward her sister (click each site’s name for links to the offending posts):

The Daily Caller:

“Lena Dunham Verifies Sexually Abusing Sister… the gleeful sexual abuse of her infant sister, Grace. … the casualness with which Dunham writes of predatorily violating her sister…”

feminspire:

“In her new book ‘Not That Kind of Girl’, Lena Dunham details some of the various ways in which she grooms and molests her younger sister. … She has taken to twitter and effectively adopted the language of abusers in saying ‘my victim isn’t mad, why should you be?’. … In the memoir she detailed grooming her sister for increasing sexual abuse. She compared herself to a predator. … Lena Dunham groomed and sexually molested her sister. It happened. She wrote about it. She published it. That’s not a slant or a spin or a ‘right wing’ news story.”

Downtrend:

“Lena Dunham Upset About Being Accused Of Molesting Her Sister After She Writes Book Describing How She Molested Her Sister … I don’t know how you can look at this in any other way than Dunham molested her little sister.”

Weasel Zippers:

“Lena Dunham’s Book Details Coercive Efforts To Engage In Sexual Contact With Her Younger Sister. … Lena Dunham’s shocking new book outlines her attempts to kiss, fondle and sexually abuse her own sister.”

The Other McCain:

“Did Pervert @LenaDunham Make Her Younger Sister Grace a Lesbian? … We learn that the degenerate young Dunham molested her sister as a child.”

Townhall:

“Dunham shared several stories from her childhood and early adulthood, including several deeply disturbing anecdotes about sexually experimenting with her toddler-aged sister. … Many took to Twitter to express their outrage at the fact that a woman who “glibly” wrote about sexually abusing her sister during their childhood had largely escaped criticism for the act. … Dunham’s stories were deeply disturbing, and the fact that the manuscript was read and approved by several people prior to publication is even worse.”

Ace of Spades:

“So it was with a considerable amount of horror that I read some of the excerpts from Lena Dunham’s biography in which she describes how she spent part of her childhood molesting her little sister.”

Vox Populi:

“Is Lena Dunham eligible for the SFWA? It appears she’ll fit right in with the SJWs, pedophiles, and child molesters there. … She’s not a voice of a generation, by her own account she is an incestuous child molester.”

The Frisky:

“What bothers me and many others about Dunham’s stories of touching and manipulating her sister for affection is that neither of her parents is shown stepping in and teaching Lena how to respect her sister’s body and boundaries. … The way Dunham’s tells these stories is what’s most bothersome to me. … the way she describes “parting” her infant sister’s vagina is pretty goddamn stomach-turning. … Consent, consent, consent — and a one-year-old cannot consent. Regardless of whether this was merely an issue of curiosity, Lena touched her sister’s vagina without her consent. And no, she absolutely should not be milking that image for shock value. It’s tasteless and disgusting at best and blithely abusive at worst.”

Gay Patriot:

“Apparently, Ms. Dunham is upset that “right-wingers” disapprove of her molesting her little sister, and later bragging about it.”

National Review:

“Grace’s satisfaction with her prank suggest that Grace was expecting her older sister to go poking around in her genitals and inserted the pebbles in expectation of it. Grace is around one year old at the time of these events. There is no non-horrific interpretation of this episode.”

Moonbattery:

“Lena Dunham Admits to Sexually Molesting Younger Sister … What sickness lies in the mind and past actions of someone who openly admits to sexually molesting her younger sister.”

Mediaite:

“Lena Dunham’s Disturbing Passage Deserves All the Scorn It’s Getting … Truth Revolt or any other publication that quoted Dunham’s book should stick to their guns given the author and her legal team have zero legs to stand on here. … As a parent, I can safely advise all others to be sure not to allow Lena Dunham within 500 feet of your children. … I just hope this column doesn’t mean a certified letter is coming to me from Dunham’s legal team anytime soon.”

PJ Media:

“It is not an act of slander to note that Dunham repeatedly and unabashedly described sexually predatory behavior toward her own sister: what Truth Revolt (and dozens of other sites) did is simply recount what Dunham herself wrote (including the sentence, “Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.”)”

Twitchy:

“We can’t imagine a world where accusations of the molestation of a younger sibling would be “LOL.” … We won’t get into another anecdote involving Dunham and her baby sister’s genitals, but as National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson puts it, “There is no non-horrific interpretation of this episode.” … Don’t twist her words? Again, these are verbatim passages from the book she chose to write and publish.”

RedState:

“Lena Dunham, who recently revealed acting as a “sexual predator” towards her younger sister in her book, Not That Kind of Girl.”

BizPac Review:

“You’re a right-wing monster if you think feminist actress repeatedly molesting her sister was wrong…The book contains accounts that can certainly be interpreted as sexual molestation of a minor.”

Right Wing News:

“This is absolutely disgusting. Lena Dunham’s shocking new book outlines her attempts to kiss, fondle and sexually abuse her own sister.”

Bossip:

“Lena Dunham Details Sexually Molesting Her Little Sister … This is disgusting! … The worst part is that Lena thinks describing this form of abuse is entertaining and in no way further assaulting her little sister. Sick!”

LifeNews:

“Planned Parenthood Celebrity Spokeswoman Lena Dunham Sexually Abused Her Little Sister … In one quote from the book, the prominent abortion activist essentially admits to sexually abusing her little sister.”

Washington Times:

“Ms. Dunham describes sexually experimenting with her little sister, explaining in awkward detail how at the age of 7 she curiously peered into her 1-year-old sister’s vagina…”

Perez Hilton:

“In her book Not That Kind Of Girl, Lena describes how, as a child, she bribed her little sister for affection and even once examined her vagina out of curiosity. … Unfortunately for Lena, many have seen the other side of this story and agree that what she did with her sister does constitute child molestation…”

Flopping Aces:

“Lena Dunham is one sick pervert.”

Hollywood Life:

“In her book, Lena writes that she touched her sister’s genitalia and tried to get her toddler sister to kiss her. … Lena also details her times masturbating in bed next to her younger sister.”

Madame Noir:

“Lena Dunham describes what reads like a mild obsession with her younger sister. But it’s the way she expressed this obsession and the way she describes in it retrospect that literally have our mouths twisting and our stomachs churning. … Lena also included another story where she masturbated while her sister was in bed beside her. … There are so many troubling elements in the retelling of this story.”

Dianna E. Anderson (book author):

(Posted photograph of the actual page in Dunham’s book in which Dunham characterizes herself as a “sexual predator.”)

Thousands of Twitter users:

“#BoycottLenaDunham”

Truth Revolt:

“Lena Dunham describes experimenting sexually with her younger sister Grace…Dunham describes using her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet.”

Random House:

“I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. … This was within the spectrum of things that I did. … Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.”

(And if you are aware of any other sites which should be added to this list, feel free to post links in the comments section below.)

For the record, here are just a few direct quotes from Lena Dunham’s newly published autobiographical memoir, Not That Kind of Girl, in which she describes…

…probing her younger sister’s vagina…:

“One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. “My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!”

My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did.

…and bribing her to kiss on the lips and drape their bodies together…”

“As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.

…and masturbating in the bed next to her…:

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.”

Read bullet |

NY Hatchet Attacker, Zale Thompson, Had Islamic Facebook Page

Friday, October 24th, 2014 - by Zombie

The man who attacked four police officers in Queens, New York yesterday, Zale H. Thompson, had a Facebook page featuring Islamic imagery.

As reported by Agence France Press, Thompson’s Muslim connections are starting to emerge, indicating that the hatchet attack was either a case of “lone wolf Islamic terrorism” (most likely), or part of a coordinated terror campaign (although there is no evidence yet that he had any connection to any specific group).

Because none of the reports have yet posted the actual images from his Facebook page, I’m posting screenshots of it here, to preserve the evidence, in case it later gets taken down.

Here is his Facebook page, which as of this writing is still online:

Zale Thompson, Queens, New York.

Below are the screenshots, which speak for themselves.

The top banner features Islamic calligraphy and a warrior dressed in Arabic garb:

One of his only Facebook uploaded photos shows the Islamic calligraphy in greater detail, which presumably is of a religious nature — according to CNN, “A Quran quote in classic Arabic calligraphy mentioning judgment against those who have wandered astray serves as the page’s banner”:

Many of his Facebook “friends” had Muslim names (this is just a small sample):

The only other photo on his page showed what looked like Middle Eastern architectural designs:

Furthermore, as the AFP aricle linked above reports,

SITE, which monitors radical Muslim groups, said that in a comment Thompson had posted to a pro-Islamic State video on September 13, 2014, he described “jihad as a justifiable response to the oppression of the ‘Zionists and the Crusaders.’”

The New York Post reports that, in a private Facebook post, he wrote,

They will not be able to defeat our people if we use guerilla warfare. Attack their weak flanks.

The only conclusion to draw is that this hatchet attack was an act of terrorism inspired by fundamentalist Islamic ideology.

Read bullet |

I Am Ashamed to Be a Vegetarian

Monday, October 13th, 2014 - by Zombie

I’m a vegetarian. I haven’t eaten meat in 20 years.

Up until this morning I was OK with my dietary choice.

But then I saw this video just uploaded by “Direct Action Everywhere,” a radical vegetarian activist gang, and now I am ashamed. Ashamed to be associated with them. Ashamed that everyone I meet must think I’m some sort of anti-meat revolutionary. Ashamed that mean-spirited lunatics have hijacked my personal food preference and turned it into rallyng cry for passive-aggressive bullying.

Watch and weep, as a contingent of vegetarian fascists burst into a random restaurant in San Francisco and try to pull some kind of creepy mind-game on the bewildered diners:

The SFGate blog posted about the incident and had this to say:

An animal activist stormed a San Francisco restaurant on Saturday, Sept. 27, and delivered a tearful speech about a pet chicken she rescued from death.

Standing in the middle of a downtown French brasserie called Bluestem, Kelly Atlas of Oakland spoke with emotion about her “little girl.”

“She was very abused for her entire life, Atlas says. “She was terrified.”

“She has a very determined look in her eyes wherever she goes. And she was hurt and abused her entire life because of this establishment and establishments like it.”

The little girl is a chicken named Snow.

The tears continuing to stream and the emotion heightening, Atlas goes on to tell restaurant patrons how she saved Snow’s life. “Someone was going to murder her,” she says. “I went in there with other humans and I took her out of there and if I hadn’t, she wouldn’t be with me right now. She would be gone, just like all of her sisters.”

Someone was going to murder her and I can see you smiling and I can see you laughing but to her this is not funny.”

At the end of her rant, Atlas cries out loudly urging diners to not eat Snow’s sisters.

This was no isolated incident. “Direct Action Everywhere” has employed this tactic (restaurant invasions, followed by tearful speeches and then silent robotic sign-holding) in cities across the country. Here they are at a fast food joint:

The difference between me and Direct Action Everywhere — which actually encapsulates the difference between my brand of “conservatarianism” and all types of progressivism — is that when I don’t eat meat, I don’t eat meat; but when a progressive doesn’t eat meat, she insists that nobody else eat meat either.

I don’t care what you do. But a progressive wants to boss you around.

It’s all very cutesy and pathetic when they employ juvenile attempts at emotional manipulation to get their way — but it quickly becomes brutal coercive totalitarianism when people like this get into positions of power.

To protest their protest, I may eat some chicken today. Just a nibble. To prove I’m not like the vegefascists.

Read bullet |

Gold Treasure Trove Shocker: Coins Likely Stolen from Mint in 1899; Finders of $10 Million Must Return It ALL to the Federal Government

Monday, March 3rd, 2014 - by Zombie

Remember the California couple who found $10 million in gold coins on their property? They’re probably going to end up with NOTHING in the final analysis, as breaking news from San Francisco reveals that the source of the mystery gold has been discovered:

A story that describes a gold heist from the San Francisco Mint at the turn of the century could explain the source of the gold coins worth $10 million that were found last month in California’s Mother Lode country.

The published news item was discovered in the Haithi Trust Digital Library and was provided by Northern California fishing guide Jack Trout, who doubles as a historian and collector of rare coins.

The details of the 1899 heist — $30,000 face value of uncirculated gold coins stolen from the San Francisco Mint in 1899 — matches every known fact about the gold coins found recently in the Sierra foothills, which were nearly $30,000 in face value of uncirculated mint condition coins mostly made at the San Francisco Mint in the late 1800s.

If, as is almost certainly the case, this explains the origin of the found coins, then the couple who found them will not merely have to pay taxes on them — they’ll have to turn them over entirely back to the federal government, since the coins’ status has changed from “treasure trove” to “stolen goods”:

Treasure trove is any gold or silver in coin, plate, or bullion that is hidden by an unknown owner in the earth or other private place for an extended period. The property is not considered treasure trove unless the identity of the owner cannot be determined. Under early common law, the finder of a treasure trove took title to it against everyone but the true owner. The U.S. law governing treasure trove has been merged, for the most part, into the law governing lost property. In the absence of a contrary statutory provision, the title to treasure trove belongs to the finder against all others with the exception of the true owner.

It was a nice story while it lasted.

UPDATE

Just to clarify:

The finders will EITHER have to hand over all the coins back to the government, OR pay taxes on them (on the off-chance they win the legal battle to retain ownership of the coins). Under no circumstance (of which I am aware) would they have to pay taxes AND return the coins.

UPDATE II

A few of the coins in the hoard were from different U.S. Mints and from earlier in the 19th century. It could be the case that the Federal Government might only be able to prove that the coins amongst the hoard which can be confirmed as coming from the San Francisco Mint in 1899 must be returned, while the finders could contest that the remaining coins were not part of that robbery and thus not necessarily stolen property. It’s entirely possible that the person who originally buried the hoard mixed in coins from more than one different sources (or crimes). In this case, the finders and the government would split ownership.

UPDATE III

According to the 1906 edition of the official Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, a mint clerk named W.N. Dimmick was caught and convicted of stealing $30,000 in gold coins from the San Francisco Mint — although in the description of the case no mention is made of whether Dimmick ever revealed the location of the stolen coins, or whether they were ever recovered.

Here is the full text of the relevant minutes from the House Hearings:


Note that there is a discrepancy in the date of the supposed crime: Was it 1899, or 1901? A few pages later in the same minutes is this passage revealing that there may have been many other thefts from the mint as well, due to a plague of dishonest mint employees:

Also note that one of the coins found in the hoard was an ultra-rare 1866 Liberty $20 gold piece missing the phrase “In God We Trust” — a coin which was never released to the public and which must have been produced and kept within the mint itself.

This link to an article in the July 9, 1901 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle has more details about the Dimmick theft.

Read bullet |

Lamentations of Their Women: UCLA Leftist Throws Wild Tantrum When Anti-Israel Vote Fails

Saturday, March 1st, 2014 - by Zombie

I’ve often seen the literary phrase “lamentations of their women,” but I’ve never actually heard what such a thing sounded like — until today, that is.

In the early morning of February 26, after hours of debate, the UCLA student government rejected a motion to divest their funds from Israel, despite a concerted campaign by anti-Israel activists on campus.

Immediately after the vote, one of the anti-Israel activists on the panel burst into tears and started screaming and whining incomprehensibly, and in general throwing a tantrum worthy of a frustrated two year old. Luckily, the whole meltdown was captured on camera:

Commenters across the internet are saying that this exemplifies how liberals act when they lose. But I think it’s more than just that. This typifies the level of emotional maturity of the millennial generation who have only heard “yes” their entire lives, who have never been criticized, and who have always gotten exactly what they wanted. We are becoming a nation of spoiled children, and when reality smacks these youngsters in the face for the very first time — well, the reaction can be quite troubling or amusing, depending on how much you embrace the schadenfreude.


UPDATE:

The two videos on the next page seem appropriate, considering the circumstances:

Read bullet |

Kiddie Porn Does Not Count as ‘Moral Turpitude’ to S.F. Govt.

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 - by Zombie

A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude.

As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. But the evidence was so overwhelming that, after 18 months of legal wrangling, on Tuesday, January 21, Brinkin pled guilty to felony possession of child pornography, with various other more serious charges dropped as part of the plea bargain. He will serve just six months in jail and thereafter have to register as a sex offender.

But the scandal didn’t end there. A recent law defining which type of actions count as “moral turpitude” required to nullify municipal pension benefits does not include sex crimes involving children, and only refers to financial crimes:

Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits.

In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.”

THIS IS A CONTENT WARNING FOR ANYONE WHO DOES NOT WISH TO READ UPSETTING MATERIAL.

On the following page is a small sampling of the evidence presented in the case. Stop reading now if you don’t want to see any of the police evidence against Larry Brinkin.

Read bullet |

MissionAccomplished.gov

Sunday, December 1st, 2013 - by Zombie

Today is the Obama administration’s self-imposed deadline for Healthcare.gov to be “fixed.”

After initially promising a complete fix of the broken Web site by “the end of November,” the White House has incrementally lowered expectations, moved the goalposts and backpedaled on earlier promises as the depth and intractability of the site’s problems became apparent during November’s “tech surge.”

But the deadline itself could not be moved because of unchangeable schedules built into the Affordable Care Act — the most significant being that everyone in the nation is now required by law to have health insurance by January 1, 2014. Healthcare.gov — the only place where the federal subsidies could be obtained to offset the new sky-high insurance plans — had to be working by December, or Obamacare would collapse under the weight of tens of millions of people breaking the law through no fault of their own.

So the administration had absolutely no choice but to declare victory today and deem Healthcare.gov to be sufficiently “fixed” for them to claim that they kept their promises and met the deadline:

HealthCare.gov team claims victory: ‘We have met the goal’

The Obama administration claimed victory Sunday for making HealthCare.gov workable for the vast majority of users….

But even during their victory dance itself they were still moving the goalposts and backpedaling further:

The agency that oversees HealthCare.gov said “we believe we have met the goal” of making the system navigable for most people, but cautioned that more problems may lie ahead.

“Dramatic progress has been made,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated in a report released Sunday morning. “[But] there is more work to be done to continue to improve and enhance the website.”

Administration officials acknowledge that there are more errors to fix with HealthCare.gov. The severity of these issues is unknown, and it is possible that some have yet to be discovered.

“As with any web project, there is not a magic moment [for completion], but a process of continual improvement over time,” CMS communications director Julie Bataille said Sunday.

The problem for the administration is that they moved the goalposts so often over the previous five weeks that they have already lost the messaging war.

One is reminded of the “Mission Accomplished” gaffe which many pundits now see as the PR snafu which began the unraveling of the Bush administration: Shortly after the successful 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush appeared on an aircraft carrier to give a speech to the troops, and behind him was a banner declaring “Mission Accomplished.” In truth, the specific mission of invading Iraq, overthrowing the government and occupying the country had been accomplished — but over the subsequent months it became clear that quelling the Iraqi insurgency was far from accomplished, and that the war had just begun. Thus the moment became an iconic symbol of a broken presidential promise.

And so today’s declaration of victory over rebellious html code will come back to haunt Obama for the rest of his term.

Why?

I list five reasons on the next page.

Read bullet |

Slavery Makes a Comeback: Eco-Activists Voluntarily Enslave Themselves as Manual Laborers

Sunday, November 17th, 2013 - by Zombie

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in the United States — but the authors of that amendment didn’t take into account how to cope with people who want to become slaves as a political statement.

Absurd as it may seem, self-enslavement is now a growing fad among privileged white eco-activists, who happily “volunteer” to do unpaid manual farm labor, to alleviate themselves of civilizational guilt and to get in touch with the Earth.

It wasn’t long ago that lower-middle-class kids would spend summers working on farms in order to earn money. Now upper-middle-class kids labor in the fields for no pay simply in order to be cool. Their parents are supporting them, after all. It feels hypocritical to spend your life as a “food justice” activist if you’ve never actually grown food, so why not enslave yourself for a while to earn some political credibility?

A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle approvingly describes the latest mania:

[Brian] Blosser grew up in a suburb of St. Louis. But he was in graduate school and had become particularly curious about food, how it was grown and where it came from.

The 27-year-old’s search for answers has turned him into a perennial WWOOFer (pronounced like the sound a dog makes). The acronym has become part of the vernacular in the farming exchange program, which has become a cultural phenomenon and is especially popular in Northern California.

WWOOF originally stood for Working Weekends on Organic Farms, a loose-knit organization founded in 1971 in England to help place volunteers on farms in exchange for free room and board and an opportunity to learn about agriculture.

This month [Blosser]‘s working at Bobcat Ridge Avocados in Watsonville.

“I was intrigued by avocados, which we don’t see too many of in St. Louis,” Blosser said, adding that he will use his experience to start an urban farm when he gets home.

His host, Nancy Faulstich, her husband and three children have been participating in WWOOF USA for more than two years, taking in two volunteers at a time year-round. They’ve come from as far away as New Zealand and India to help with the Faulstich family’s avocado orchard – about 200 trees – and their large garden, doing everything from watering and planting seeds to mulching and unloading manure.

Erin Tormey of Irish Ridge Ranch, a 48-acre apple orchard and home to 180 laying hens in Half Moon Bay, says those looking for good surfing or a yoga retreat need not apply.

“I only want people who want to farm,” said Tormey, 52. “I think some have the impression that we run around in gingham dresses going to barn dances. Farming is a huge amount of physical labor.”

Tormey said the experience for her has been extremely advantageous.

“I can’t run the farm myself,” she said. But besides getting labor, “I have learned from every WWOOFer I’ve had stay here. Sometimes it’s as simple as doing something the same way forever and having someone with fresh eyes say, ‘Why don’t you move that here instead of there?’ The level of optimism these volunteers bring is inspiring. To bring about change by getting down in the dirt – well, it’s amazing.”

It’s “amazing” alright — amazing that voluntary indentured servitude has become the “in” thing to do among the über-privileged eco-hipster dilettantes of the modern environmental movement.

If the European colonialists had justified slave-trading as merely “giving Africans an opportunity to learn about agriculture,” would that have made it OK?

Read bullet |

‘Consider Reducing Your Income by Working Less’ to Get Obamacare Subsidy, says SF Chronicle

Sunday, October 13th, 2013 - by Zombie

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article yesterday about how to take advantage of federal Obamacare subsidies, with the ominous headline “Lower 2014 income can net huge health care subsidy.”

The author, Kathleen Pender, correctly points out that there is now a huge and abrupt “cliff” in health care costs for many Americans: earn $1 more than the prescribed limit for being on the federal health-subsidy dole, and you’ll have to pay many thousands — even tens of thousands — of dollars more next year for health insurance than you would otherwise. So obviously the smart thing to do would be to find ways to “lower your income.”

After recommending a few accounting tricks (but also noting that most standard tricks won’t work), on page 2 of the article Pender gets to the point:

“You can also consider reducing your 2014 income by working just a bit less.”

This, right here, is the toxic essence of the welfare state. It’s already been proven over and over that for the lower classes, welfare incentivizes permanent dependence: Since one gets more money receiving a raft of federal entitlements than one would get earning a salary at a low-level job, it’s a rational economic decision to remain unemployed, on purpose. Which millions of Americans do, generation after generation, creating a permanent underclass that only consumes the common treasury without ever contributing anything to it.

What Obamacare does, as demonstrated by this eye-opening article, is bring the same economic disincentive to the middle class: It is now a rational economic decision for the average American to earn less money. And to earn less you must work less, and when you work less, you contribute less to the common good.

With people intentionally contributing less to the common good, there will be less federal money available to finance the subsidies (which are fiscally unaffordable even without this problem), leading to an unavoidable downward economic spiral for the entire nation.

Read bullet |

Sandcastles? Verboten! Obama Boots Kids’ Sandcastle Contest off Beach

Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 - by Zombie

If you thought the Shutdown Follies couldn’t get any more absurd and spiteful, you were quite mistaken.

It was announced today that an annual sandcastle contest on San Francisco’s Ocean Beach has been cancelled out of sheer malice by the Obama administration, despite the fact that the beach on which it is held — part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area — normally has no lifeguards, no rangers, is permanently open to the public, and requires no funds for day-to-day operations:

A popular youth sandcastle contest on San Francisco’s Ocean Beach is the latest local victim of the federal government shutdown, event organizers said today.

The Leap 30th Anniversary Sandcastle Contest was planned for Saturday, but the continued standoff in Congress over the federal budget is causing organizers to postpone the event until a later date.

Thousands of people were expected to attend the free event, with more than 20 local schools participating. Leap, a local arts advocacy nonprofit, has held the contest for the past three decades.

In a letter sent to participating schools and teams, event organizers said officials with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area notified them on Monday that the contest could no longer take place since Ocean Beach is part of the GGNRA and is closed.

We were told that we could be fined for trespassing and that our permit was no longer valid,” the letter said. “We were also told that our event could be shut down by park rangers or by San Francisco police.”

This comes on the heels of the announcement earlier today that the Cliff House restaurant, which overlooks the beach where the contest is held, was also ordered to be closed indefinitely.

A nonprofit that helps children wants to hold their 30th anniversary sandcastle contest? GET OFF MY BEACH says the president.

And the children cried.


Also see:

Shutdown Showdown: SF’s Cliff House Defies Obama Admin, Reopens — and Is Forced to Close AGAIN

Read bullet |

Shutdown Showdown: SF’s Cliff House Defies Obama Admin, Reopens — and Is Forced to Close AGAIN

Wednesday, October 9th, 2013 - by Zombie

The saga of San Francisco’s Cliff House took a series of dramatic turns this week as the owners engaged in a political and legal duel with the federal government.

As we reported last Thursday, the historic Cliff House restaurant — a privately owned profitable business which sits on land controlled by the National Park Service — was suddenly ordered to close by the Obama administration on October 3.

Then on Monday, October 7, with little fanfare, Cliff House’s owners Dan and Mary Hountalas decided to defy the government’s closure order and instead re-open for business, to the delight of the hundreds of tourists and locals who dine there every day. When word leaked out that the Cliff House had re-opened, the local National Park Service office consulted with Washington, D.C., and then issued a second (and apparently firmer) order to the owners to re-close the restaurant; the owners were then forced to unwillingly comply for a second time last night at midnight:

The famed Cliff House restaurant has been forced to shut its doors for the remainder of the federal government shutdown, after it defied orders by reopening earlier this week.

Diners who learned of the new closure were none too happy, to say the least:

“That’s outrageous! Are you serious?” Hubbard said as she walked out of the restaurant, the sunset glazing the windows behind her. “It is very stupid! Why are people deprived of a job? Why do the rest of us have to stop enjoying the parks?”

Hubbard wasn’t alone in her outrage at missing out on the $10 endive salad or the $27 mahi mahi.

“You’re kidding me,” said Ken Evans, who was visiting from Visalia and stopped by the Cliff House to take in the view. “You know what, I would stay open if I were them. You can’t close these things down.”

The Hountalas family, who have owned and operated the Cliff House for 40 years, issued a press release over the weekend explaining in no uncertain terms that they were being forced to close against their wishes and had decided to defy the closure order as a matter of principle — and finances:

In response to the Federal Government shutdown the Cliff House has reached a difficult decision to reopen its doors, Monday, October 7, 2013. While this bold move challenges the shut down order the Cliff House must remain operational.

Our partners at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area have fought hard for the Cliff House to be allowed to stay open.

As a successful, independent, privately owned business that does not depend on any tax dollars or federal funding, the Cliff House must have income.

The Cliff House operates 365 days a year and employs 170 staff most of whom are furloughed. Even though the Cliff House is not open for business there are daily operating costs, which include maintenance of the iconic Cliff House building.

Having been shut down for four days the Cliff House has already assumed considerable financial loss. Outreach has been done to donate unused food to local charities that would have otherwise gone to waste.

The news reports leave one key question unanswered: What additional threat accompanied the second closure order which forced the owners into compliance?

If they were brave enough to deny the first order, why did they cave in the second time?

Since the Cliff House is a “concessionaire” of the National Park Service — a privately owned business granted a concession to operate on federal land — it is quite likely (although still unproven at this point) that they were threatened with the loss of their concession if they did not comply with the Obama administration’s second order.

Note also that the Hountalas’ press release praises the local National Park Service employees who “have fought hard for the Cliff House to be allowed to stay open,” but that according to an article published yesterday,

A rep for the Park Service told Inside Scoop that they’re waiting for further information from their bosses in D.C. before making a decision.

The local office apparently got their marching orders from Washington late last night, and issued an immediate second threat.

Why so quick? The Obama administration seems to be trying to quell a potential nascent mutiny among concessionaires at National Parks:

The case could also encourage other National Park concessionaires to violate the rule and reopen their doors, especially if the conflict continues to go unresolved.

Will National Park Service concessionaires organize a coordinated wave of civil disobedience?

Read bullet |

Profitable privately owned restaurant on federal land in SF ordered closed “due to shutdown”; managers however still getting paid

Thursday, October 3rd, 2013 - by Zombie

Most of the news about the “Shutdown Theater” — unnecessary closures ordered by the Obama administration to purposely maximize the pain of the government shutdown — has focused on the Washington, DC area, but the epidemic of artificial Potemkin Suffering has now struck the West Coast as well.

San Francisco’s Cliff House, a privately owned and very profitable restaurant overlooking the Pacific Ocean, was suddenly and unexpectedly ordered closed today, “because” the building sits on federal land. This, despite the fact that the Cliff House racks up $11.5 million in annual sales and is one of the most profitable independent restaurants in the nation.

How does the government save money by shuttering a profitable business? And a private one at that?

There are no federal employees at the Cliff House restaurant; a receptionist still manning the phones there today confirmed that all employees are paid by the restaurant’s owners, not by the government. As the Cliff House’s own Web site notes today, the restaurant is a “concessionaire” operating a business on Federal land — in this case, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which encompasses much of the Pacific shoreline along San Francisco and Marin counties — which means it is a private business which pays a fee to operate on government property:

But there is no federally staffed “admission office” to access Cliff House, nor are there park rangers nor any other government employees involved in the Cliff House restaurant’s operation — it sits directly on a city street, accessible to all, as this photo reveals:

Proof that this forced closure is only for political “optics” in an attempt by Obama to arouse public anger at the Republican controlled House of Representatives: While the waitresses and chefs were sent home today without paychecks, the restaurant’s managers continue to get paid as normal:

During the hiatus, servers and cooks will not get paid, according to a receptionist at the restaurant, though managers and receptionists — who will still be working — will continue to get paid.

If the restaurant was being closed because there was no money to pay employees due to the shutdown, then obviously everybody would get sent home. But no — as we have seen at various facilities around the country, only the employees who directly serve the public are being furloughed, because their absence causes inconvenience — while the behind-the-scenes managers and executives (and politicians) continue to draw their salaries as normal.

The absurdity is becoming more and more apparent every day as we learn that none of the closures are actually necessary at all, and didn’t happen during previous shutdowns.

The fact that the federal government twisted the arm of a private business to intentionally and unnecessarily inconvenience its customers (and lose money while doing so) proves that the Obama administration will stop at nothing to maximize the drama of its political brinksmanship.

Read bullet |

Clown who looks like Obama gets banned for life after public outcry over insulting antics — EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS

Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 - by Zombie

Yesterday a clown who dressed up to look like President Obama was was banned for life from performing for the American public after engaging in shocking antics that outraged many viewers.

The Tatler has obtained these exclusive photos of the clown’s career-ending performance:

During his insensitive performance, the clown frequently contorted his body into ridiculous poses in order to make the president look like a buffoon.

At one point the clown squatted grotesquely in front of the stunned audience, as if preparing to make a bowel movement.

The clown then bared his fangs and snarled, scaring many small children in the audience.

YouTube Preview Image
The clown concluded his performance with an extended skit in which, dressed realistically as Obama, he took four strokes to finally sink his putt on a simulated golf hole, despite starting the skit only a few yards from the pin, implying that the President was a bad golfer, even though he has spent the majority of his presidency on the course.

Fortunately, Americans will no longer be subjected to the clown’s antics, since the lifetime ban — imposed by the Court of Public Opinion — will prevent the clown from performing his duties after today.

Read bullet |

Weiner Is a Racist Too: ‘Carlos Danger’ Traffics in Sexual Stereotype of the Hot-Blooded ‘Latin Lover’

Wednesday, July 24th, 2013 - by Zombie

Why did Anthony Weiner choose the screen name “Carlos Danger” for his recent online sexual exploits?

Why not “Percival Danger,” or “Kenji Danger,” or even just “Bob Danger”?

Because upper-class British twits, Japanese nerds, and American white-bread suburbanites don’t have a sexual aura.

But dashing, exotic, “dangerous” Latin lovers do ooze sexual excitement, which is why Weiner chose “Carlos Danger” over the perhaps more accurate “Melvin Boring.”

The American left just spent two weeks lecturing the nation about the evils of ethnic stereotyping (in relation to the Trayvon Martin case), but when the very next major news event itself featured a blatant example of ethnic stereotyping, the discussion is suddenly dropped. Because, if it wasn’t already obvious enough, the perpetrator is himself a liberal.

Scholars in modern academia have written countless treatises decrying the “Latin lover” stereotype which casts Hispanic men as “passionate and seductive” and dangerously sexual. How demeaning, how insulting it is to categorize people by group traits rather than treat them as individuals.

But Weiner, himself lacking any hint of exoticism or eroticism, unconsciously fell right into the racist stereotyping trap when choosing a new persona to inhabit.

The left will let him get away with it. We shouldn’t be so forgiving.

Read bullet |

Breaking: Plane crash at San Francisco Airport

Saturday, July 6th, 2013 - by Zombie

Just a few minutes ago, an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 en route from Seoul crash-landed at San Francisco International Airport:

A plane crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport Saturday morning after its tail came off while it was touching down on the runway.

According to a witness, around 11:20 a.m. the plane was just about to land — its landing gear had come down — when the tail of the plane came off.

After wobbling for a minute, the aircraft flipped upside down, coming to a stop on runway on it’s back.
The plane, reportedly a Boeing 777, was coming from South Korea, according to flight tracking information.

(Note: this early article was in error in its claim that the plane flipped upside down. As later photos revealed, the plane ended up on its belly, right-side up.

A tail falling off sounds like mechanical failure. (Note: See updates below.) Number of casualties unknown. Check back for updates as the story unfolds.

UPDATE 1:

Here’s a video of the burning fuselage:
YouTube Preview Image

UPDATE 2:

Epoch Times has a summary:

Twitter erupted on Saturday with reports that a plane crashed at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Photos taken from other planes showed smoke billowing from the purported crash.

“Literally just witnessed a plane crash (SFO) start to finish..cannot stop crying,” said one witness.

“Huge crash on SFO. I hope and pray everyone on that plane and facility is ok,” wrote one user.

Another said that “plane on fire moments ago at SFO airport.”

ABC News tweeted that the “plane on fire at #SFO is a Boeing 777 operated by Asiana Airlines in from Taipei,” the capital of Taiwan.

UPDATE 3:

An important first-person account just just appeared on Path.com:

UPDATE 4:

Lots of photos of the crash and first-person accounts from Twitter are posted on this page.

UPDATE 5:

Local reports are claiming there are now two confirmed deaths.

UPDATE 6:

Aerial photos of the crash site reveal that the plane attempted to land too early, and the back end of the aircraft struck the breakwater at the start of the runway. Planes arriving at SFO descend to just a few feet over the water of San Francisco Bay before arriving at the runway; this plane was too low as it reached start of the runway and the tail section struck the rocks of the breakwater, and then snapped off.

UPDATE 7:

Here are some photos of the fuselage taken from a helicopter a few minutes ago:

UPDATE 8:

KTVU confirms that there are so far at least 2 fatalities and 61 injuries.

UPDATE 9:

Twitchy is keeping on top of all the tweets from eyewitnesses.

UPDATE 10:

The crashed happened on SFO’s runway 28L. This stock image of runway 28L reveals the point of impact, where the tail section struck the breakwater (slightly off-enter from the middle of the runway) which I have circled with a green oval:

UPDATE 11:

Here is a screenshot from a video taken by a helicopter a couple minutes ago showing the exact spot of the first impact on the breakwater at the start of runway 28L:

UPDATE 12:

By now (2:30pm) this story is being covered minute-by-minute by all new networks locally and nationwide, so I’ll let the story unfold in the media and only add updates if there are any major revelations.

Read bullet |

Liberals discard anti-war buttons along with their integrity

Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013 - by Zombie

Saturday is garage sale day around the San Francisco area and so I went bargain-hunting for antiques and collectibles, as I sometimes like to do on sunny summer days.

But this weekend for the first time I encountered something I had never before seen: sale-givers were getting rid of their old political message-buttons — the kind one might wear at a protest. A few folks were selling their buttons for a quarter each, but in most cases the buttons were simply being given away, dumped in a “free box” of possibly usable discards for customers to rummage through at the bottom of the driveway.

As happens with emerging trends, I didn’t really notice that I was observing a pattern until the day was nearly over. It only began to dawn on me after the fourth or fifth sale with discarded buttons that something peculiar was afoot. It was almost as if the Birkenstock crowd had all heard some secret message telling them to get rid of those incriminating buttons. Luckily, because I sort of casually collect political memorabilia, I had been picking up and saving buttons throughout the day, so even though it didn’t occur to me to photograph them in situ at the sales, I was able to assemble my haul afterwards and snap a picture:

The first button I encountered was the one that says “Stop the War Against Iraq.” Because I am a cruel and sarcastic person, I picked it up and said to the woman giving the sale, “Hey, this one’s still usable. All you need to do is print out a little sticker that says ‘Syria’ and glue it on top of ‘Iraq’.” She glared at me silently, grinding her teeth, until I backed down the driveway and escaped.

Similar snark at later sales was met with similar “Get off my property” hostility, or in some cases pained silence.

The news that our Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning president was getting the U.S. involved in yet another war must have induced an epidemic of cognitive dissonance and ideological disintegration amongst the Bay Area’s liberal voters, who previously imagined that they embraced a consistent political philosophy. They opposed militarism — American militarism, at least — and Obama embodied their ideals, so everything was aligned in the universe. But what to do when you support Obama, and you oppose war — but now Obama supports war? You have only three options:

a. Go insane; or
b. Stop supporting Obama; or
c. Become a hypocrite and pretend that you never opposed war in the first place.

It became clear to me on Saturday that many Bay Area liberals were choosing Option C, which meant quickly getting rid of all those anti-war buttons left over from the Bush era, and along with them the liberals’ “principled” opposition to war as a concept.

To be fair, not all liberals are choosing that option. Some are simply going insane (or more insane than they already were) by existing in a state of unresolved cognitive dissonance; and some (mostly on the anti-American Marxist far left) are throwing Obama under the bus for being insufficiently revolutionary in all areas at all times.

But the average middle-information liberal — the kind who are still drunk on the idealized notion of an Obama presidency — place more value on aggrandizing Obama’s reputation and legacy than they do on any substantive political principles. And so when the time comes to choose between Obama and their personal integrity, they choose Obama. Which also entails quickly and quietly getting rid of all those principled anti-war buttons. Interestingly, as the photo shows, it also means getting rid of all those anti-Bush buttons, since the main reason to oppose Bush back then was because of his hawkish foreign policy decisions.

When a Republican is in office, the fair-weather anti-war crowd will oppose any kind of war “on principle.” But when a Democrat — particularly a liberal Democratic demigod — drags the country into a war, suddenly the principles evaporate and war is OK. This wasn’t always the case: In the mid-1960s the far left, which had applauded LBJ’s liberal domestic agenda, suddenly branded him an evil baby-killer when he turned our “advisory role” in Vietnam into a full-scale war. This emotional reversal was only possible because the left already had mixed feelings about the abrasive and manipulative Johnson in the first place. Obama, on the other hand, is much more of a symbol, an icon, and for a liberal to reject him personally feels much more like a rejection of the entire progressive project. Besides, since 2008 the primary liberal strategy has to been to brand anyone who opposes Obama’s policies as a racist, which makes it now impossible for the liberals themselves to oppose any of his policies, lest they run afoul of their own strategy and become branded as racists themselves.

In any case, the buttons have now been added to my political memorabilia collection, with a special note: “Collected in 2013 at the start of the Syrian War.”

Read bullet |

Gay Marriage: All of Today’s Possible Scenarios in One Handy Chart

Tuesday, June 25th, 2013 - by Zombie

UPDATE:

Exactly as I predicted, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the Proposition 8 case, declaring that the proposition’s original authors had no “standing” (no legal right) to argue on behalf of the State of California. Additionally they voided the earlier Ninth Circuit ruling against Proposition 8 for the same reason — which means that a long-ago preliminary decision by a single judge, Vaughn Walker, will prove to be the final word on the issue. Since Walker made the (in my opinion) bizarre ruling that Proposition 8 was invalid because the voters who passed it had the wrong motivations for wanting to define marriage, that means the proposition is voided and cannot be enforced. (Read the official Supreme Court ruling here [pdf].)

The argument is still not necessarily settled, however; some analysts claim that Vaughn’s ruling only applied to the two individual petitioners who challenged Prop 8, and since it was not a class action suit it had no bearing on the rest of California residents. The legal tussle is likely to continue — although since no one seems to have legal standing to defend a constitutional amendment approved by 53% of voters (how can that be???), it’s unclear who will be able to represent Prop 8 in any future hearings.

In any event, the ruling has no effect on any of the other 49 states, so the nationwide debate over gay marriage will continue.

UPDATE II:

I agree with Ed Morrissey’s analysis:

This decision bothers me a lot more than the DOMA case. The voters in California amended the state constitution by referendum legally, to define a legitimate government policy regarding the recognition of marriage. The court is making the case that this is a matter for California to settle, not the federal courts, and there is a very good case to make there. However, the effect of this is to overturn an election whose legality was never in doubt just because some people didn’t like the outcome. That to me is a more dangerous outcome than a precedent-setting decision on standing.


(Original post below.)

Today, June 26, is Gay-marriage-pocalypse Day for the United States and American culture. Depending on how one or two cranky Supreme Court justices feel, starting today America will either be transformed into the most progressive and transgressive forward-looking nation in history, or will descend into an endless nightmare of fascistic medieval hate.

(If you detect the whiff of sarcasm, you must be mistaken.)

Many (actually, most) people are confused about what might happen, but luckily the folks at The American Foundation for Equal Rights have produced an extremely well-designed handy-dandy infographic outlining all potential outcomes of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

Below, please find your scorecard for today’s cultural armageddon

In case it needs any clarification, here’s a quick explanation:

The court could issue any of three basic rulings:

● They could STRIKE DOWN California’s Proposition 8 (which banned gay marriage in the state).

● They could punt and DECLINE TO RULE.

● Or they could UPHOLD it.

(Click image to view full-size:)

If they STRIKE DOWN Prop 8, it could be on the basis of three different possible legal grounds:

● They could rule that ALL marriage bans of any kind in any state are unconstitutional, which would be a total and history-changing victory for the pro-gay-marriage side;

● They could rule that the existing muddled compromises known as “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” are essentially bogus and must be upgraded to full marriage status — which would affirm gay marriage in the 12 states that already have it and upgrade “civil unions” to full marriage in the 7 states that currently have the compromise (while the remaining 31 states would still have no gay marriage, at least for now).

● They could limit their decision to the technicality that, due to an earlier judicial ruling, California very briefly had legal gay marriage before this newly established right was unfairly “taken away” by popular vote through Prop 8 — which would restrict the Supreme Court’s decision’s effect solely to the state of California.

If they DECLINE TO RULE; then there are two potential rationales for the decision, both of which are based on legal technicalities:

● They could decide that the traditional-marriage advocacy groups defending Prop 8 in court (because Governor Jerry Brown refused to do so) had no “legal standing” in the case, and thus they lose by default — but this would have no relevancy outside the state of California, which would “regain” gay marriage;

● They could admit that the Supreme Court just made a boo-boo in even looking at the case in the first place, refuse to make any decision at all, in which instance an earlier lower-court ruling, which tossed out Prop 8, would remain in force — but once again which would only apply to California.

And finally if they UPHOLD Proposition 8, the only conceivable legal rationale would be that:

● States retain “states’ rights” according to the Tenth Amendment in those issues over which the Federal government has no valid interest — and the court would essentially be ruling that the Feds must stay out of the “definition of marriage” game, leaving each state to decide as it chooses. In this case, the other 11 states with gay marriage would be able to keep their laws, but the 39 states (including California) which have decided to retain opposite-gender-only “traditional marriage” would be able to keep their own laws (or change them later if they see fit).

Clear?

My prediction? It’s right after the page break.

Read bullet |

Does “reclaiming” taboo words lead to a linguistic caste system? Anthony Weiner’s “dyke” problem

Friday, June 21st, 2013 - by Zombie

The New York mayor’s race exploded in controversy yesterday when candidate Anthony Weiner insufficiently chastised a Democratic voter for using the word “dyke,” a scene described in a Washington Post article thusly:

“You a registered Democrat?” he asked an elderly woman wheeling a shopping cart by him.

“I am,” she said. “And I’m not voting for uh, what’s her name? The dyke.”

“Okay. I just need you to sign the petition to get me on the ballot,” said Weiner, who then noticed the incredulous reaction of a reporter and added, “and you really shouldn’t talk that way about people.”

“Oh, I’m sorry,” the woman said.

“It’s okay,” Weiner responded. “It’s not your fault.”

For the unpardonable crime of hesitating slightly before publicly humiliating an old lady for using a somewhat antiquated and faintly crude word, Weiner earned the white-hot wrath of the LGBTQ Outrage Machine:

The response left Assemblywoman Deborah Glick and State Senator Brad Hoylman–who have both endorsed Ms. Quinn’s campaign–seething.

“We are appalled by the account in the Washington Post of Anthony Weiner’s unacceptable response to a prospective voter’s homophobic, misogynistic slur in reference to Christine Quinn,” they wrote in a statement Thursday. “Weiner’s response to this blatant display of homophobia is completely inappropriate and extremely alarming. There is nothing ‘okay’ about homophobia and it’s never ‘okay’ to condone bias-based slurs or hate speech of any kind.”

They argued that such language was indicative of the larger challenges faced by female and openly gay political candidates.

“The voter’s use of the term demonstrates the challenges women candidates and lesbians in particular face, and Weiner’s failure to swiftly and firmly condemn her language demonstrates his lack of moral courage,” they added. “We demand an immediate apology from Mr. Weiner on behalf of LGBT and women New Yorkers.”

The Empire State Pride Agenda also added its admonition in a release that also criticized Mr. Weiner for not responding to an anti-gay comment at a recent mayoral forum.

“It’s unfortunate that we need to issue a public statement on this at all, but this is becoming a disturbing pattern,” said the group’s Executive Director Nathan Schaefer in a statement. “Anthony Weiner should know better: actually, Congressman, it’s NOT ‘okay’ to condone a homophobic slur, and it’s also not okay to sit by in silence as they are used in your presence.

Needless to say, within a few hours Weiner was falling all over himself to grovel in abject apology for his Crime Against Humanity.

Now, let’s pause and back up for a moment. Weiner’s mayoral opponent — the one whom the elderly Democrat wasn’t voting for — is Christine Quinn, the openly gay Speaker of the New York City Council. That’s why when the old lady couldn’t remember Quinn’s name she chose to describe her by Quinn’s most well-known personal detail — albeit using a word that’s now (unbeknownst to old ladies pushing shopping carts) verboten.

But here’s where things get confusing.

According to Quinn’s own bio, she was for years the director of the Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, which every June with Quinn’s approval co-sponsors the “Dyke March as part of Pride Month. Just a few days ago Quinn marched in the Brooklyn Pride Parade alongside “Dykes on Bicycles” and other dyke-named groups. She’s also scheduled to appear next week in the NYC Pride Parade alongside the same “dyke”-named groups.

All of this would strongly suggest that Christine Quinn is perfectly comfortable with people using the word “dyke.”

To top it all off, in past years Quinn has herself marched in the Dyke March, apparently thereby self-identifying as a “dyke.”

So: Since Quinn is OK with people using the word “dyke,” and since she considers herself a “dyke,” then why can’t a Democratic voter refer to her as a “dyke”?

Interestingly, still online at Quinn’s former group the Anti-Violence Project is this intriguing document which addresses the matter directly, a quiz which asks reader to match up the words “Fag/Dyke/etc.” with the following definition:

Fag/Dyke/etc. — Terms which may be oppressive when used by people outside the community but which some people have chosen to reclaim despite their history of being used in hurtful ways.

Now, the whole purpose of “reclaiming” a once-nasty word is to defuse its power. The most well-known example of this process is the word “gay” itself, which long ago used to be a crude sexual innuendo but has been so thoroughly reclaimed that most people now have no idea that “gay” was once considered an insult. The same process is currently happening with “queer” — and presumably “dyke” as well. So many people and groups now enthusiastically self-identify as “queer” that eventually the word will have no sting, as it formerly did. At least that’s the plan.

But if you blow a gasket and act Deeply Offended every time someone “outside the community” uses your reclaimed word, then you are sabotaging the entire reclaiming process. You are announcing that the word not only retains its power to hurt, but that the pain of hearing it spoken has become nearly intolerable. So naturally, if some bozo out there wanted to piss you off, he (or she, in this case) now knows the exact word to use. Reclaim FAIL.

What disturbs me most of all about this whole imbroglio is the phrase “outside the community,” which establishes a caste system for who is or is not allowed to use certain words in the English language. Essentially it comes down to this:

We are allowed to say dyke. You are not allowed to say dyke.

“We” in this case are people with politically correct thoughts. “You” is everyone else — the cultural untouchables whose corrupting heteronormativity makes them cruel oppressors simply by not being dykes themselves.

This attitude is summed up by the final definition on the gay quiz linked above:

Heterosexual Privilege — Unearned privileges that go to straight people simply because they are straight: e.g., the ability to legally marry a partner and talk publicly about crushes and intimate relationships.

Clear? A teenage girl talking about her crush on the quarterback is an unearned privilege; marrying someone of the opposite gender is an unearned privilege. And to that list we can add: Old ladies using words that we have reserved for our own exclusive use was an unearned privilege but now they no longer even have that privilege because it was rightfully taken away.

There are academics and intellectuals who already deem any public manifestation of heterosexual presumptiveness as an act of oppression and hate, and would cheer if society skated down that slippery slope to the banishment of all heteronormativity. Until that happy day, they’re content to enforce the new caste system in which “haters” are forbidden to say or do the exact things which are allowed to the morally sophisticated elites.

You, old lady pushing a shopping cart down the streets of the city, you may not speak as we speak. You are so toxic that anyone who fails to promptly punish you for speaking will themselves become contaminated by you.

You are the new leper, the new untouchable.

Read bullet |

“Obama — Stop Spying on Americans!” First anti-surveillance protesters confront Obama in Silicon Valley

Friday, June 7th, 2013 - by Zombie

That was fast.

The new domestic surveillance scandal was barely a few hours old when the first angry protesters were already out and confronting President Obama on Thursday afternoon during his latest fundraising trip to Silicon Valley.


Obama — Stop Spying on Americans!” was the most pointed and succinct of the messages outside a 5 p.m. fundraiser Obama attended at the home of millionaire Michael McCue in Palo Alto.


Obama Ignores U.S. Constitution — Targets U.S. citizens for DEATH — Spies on Americans — Wages Unauthorized Wars” read another sign carried by the small group of anti-surveillance protesters who joined a larger unrelated protest focused mainly on opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.

If there’s an upside to the ever-escalating scandals engulfing the Obama administration, it’s that they have finally united the country . . . in their distrust of the federal government.

(These photos are from a full report about Obama’s June 6 visit to Palo Alto which I’ll be publishing later today. Stay tuned!)

Read bullet |

Earth Day: Celebrating fraudulent environmental hysteria for 43 years

Monday, April 22nd, 2013 - by Zombie

Today is the 43rd Earth Day. Unless you live in Ecotopia or Cloudcuckooland you probably didn’t notice, as the artificial holiday still hasn’t gained much traction with middle America, despite decades of progressive attempts to turn it into our pre-eminent annual holy day.

Lest we forget the absurdity on which Earth Day (and everything it represents) rests, Jon Gabriel over at FreedomWorks has compiled a hilarious list of failed predictions made by hysterical environmentalists on the first Earth Day back in 1970 — a list derived mostly from a seminal debunking article written by Ronald Bailey back in 2000.

Jon’s list is making the rounds — deservedly so — and merits spreading far and wide. To that end, the Tatler presents:

The 13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

  1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”  — Harvard biologist George Wald
  2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  3. “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”New York Times editorial
  4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
  6. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  7. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  8. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
  9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
  11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.”Newsweek magazine
  13. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

And for dessert, here’s George Carlin’s utterly devastating classic rant about Earth Day and the hubris of the environmental movement:

YouTube Preview Image

Read bullet |

Pressure-cooker bombs used in Boston attacks point to possible Islamic connection

Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 - by Zombie

Breaking news from sources familiar with the investigation reveals a significant new detail about the bombs used in yesterday’s Boston Marathon terror attack — they were made out of pressure-cookers:

The two bombs that killed three people and injured at least 176 at the Boston Marathon on Monday were made from six-liter pressure cookers crammed with shards of metal, nails and ball bearings and stashed in black duffel bags, police sources revealed today.

Why is this significant? Because this exact bomb concept is a signature design used by Islamic groups in the Middle East/central Asia:

The cruelly-designed bombs have ‘frequently’ been used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, according to a 2010 Homeland Security Department pamphlet – hinting at the origins of the bombers behind the worst terrorist atrocity in the U.S. since 9/11.

A similar device was used in the failed attempt to bomb Times Square by Faisal Shazad in 2010. It is a preferred weapon of al-Qaeda terrorists and listed as the ‘most effective’ weapon of jihad, according to in an English language terror magazine called Inspire.

To my knowledge, the pressure-cooker bomb design has never been used in the U.S. by any group other than jihadist groups (if you have information otherwise, please post it in the comments section).

The Smoking Gun has digital copies of the Homeland Security press release warning of pressure-cooker bombs, issued in 2010:


[Click image to see it full-size.]

Read bullet |

Why I’m not on Twitter: #liberaltips2avoidrape as prime example

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013 - by Zombie

I don’t have a Twitter account. Never have, and as today’s events further confirmed, never will.

I realize that makes me an Internet Neanderthal, but it’s not like I’m a Twitterphobe because I don’t know what Twitter is or because I don’t understand it. Quite the opposite. I understand it all too well. And the more I learn, the less I like.

My main beef with Twitter is that 140 characters is insufficient to convey most worthwhile notions. And the format is far too short to disentangle (in any meaningful way) political disputes. Consequently, the Twitterverse is inherently shallow.

And that shallowness corrodes our thought processes, and discourages both the creation and communication of well-formulated intellectual content.

Today’s trending of “#liberaltips2avoidrape” is the best example I’ve seen yet of why I avoid Twitter. Conservatives and liberals are at each others’ throats over this hashtag, and the argument is all based on miscommunication, hive-mind bubble-thought, and everyone’s complete inability (or unwillingness) to explain the origins of the joke and the logical fallacies underpinning the dispute.

Let’s dissect the situation (in far more than 140 characters) to show what I’m talking about.

The topic under discussion is the train-wreck intersection of feminist anti-rape activism and Second Amendment gun rights. The liberal position is that guns should be outlawed, and that includes outlawed for women as well. The conservative retort is that if rapists all know that women are all unarmed, then they’re more likely to attempt rapes; thus, by outlawing guns, liberals are very likely causing more rapes to occur.

Into this mess stepped Colorado State Representative Joe Salazar, who said while discussing how rapes will be prevented on college campuses if all women are unarmed,

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles.”

Now, upon seeing this statement, conservative pundit and humorist “SooperMexican” created the sarcastic Twitter hashtag “#liberaltips2avoidrape” and started pumping out a series of hilarious (if you’re pro-gun) or offensive (if you’re liberal) Tweets, such as

and

and

Well, the hashtag caught on, and started to “trend” as they say (“become popular,” for you fellow Neanderthals), as people on all sides of the political spectrum started using it.

But at this point the entire conversation went of the rails.

Conservative gun-rights advocates thought SooperMexican’s joke was a spot-on skewering of brain-addled liberal hypocrisy. But liberals took great offense, not because they didn’t like being mocked, but because they didn’t understand the joke in the slightest.

In response, liberals started tweeting things like

and

and

…and posting graphics like this:

OK. So here we are. Both sides think they are pummeling each other with what they think are the best arguments, yet every single punch is missing its target. Because the liberals and conservatives are talking about two completely different things.

Conservatives are addressing how to stop a rape in progress, or how to stop a specific incident of rape from occurring beforehand.

Liberals, on the other hand, are discussing how to stop rape as a concept in general.

“Stopping rape” and “Stopping a rape” are two fundamentally different proposals. But no one — until this post — has pointed this detail out. And the reason no one has pointed it out is because Twitter is quip-centric, and it’s not funny to point out that the entire dispute is based on miscommunication.

But it goes deeper than that. A completely bizarre belief has arisen recently on the progressive side, as clearly evidenced in my recent report on the “1 Billion Rising” anti-rape rally, that we can prevent ALL rapes by creating a “culture of consent.” It is from this worldview that the “offended” #liberaltips2avoidrape Tweets are coming.

The flaw in this plan is that, despite feminist claims to the contrary, we already live in a “culture of consent,” and rapes occur not because American society promotes or accepts rape, but because some men are mentally ill and amoral. (And no, those men did not become mentally ill and amoral because they grew up in a pro-rape culture, but because some people are just plain evil and/or crazy.)

But where could such a bizarre belief come from — that all rapes can be stopped by training all men to be respectful of women? Well, it goes deeper and deeper. At its root this belief derives from the very early communist fantasy that all human traits are cultural artifacts, that we are all born as “blank slates,” there is no such thing as “human nature,” and that as a result society or the government can mold people into whatever shape is desired — to create “the Soviet Man” as it used to be called. (And if you think it’s overblown to bring up Soviet communism in this argument, note that the liberal “Don’t Rape” poster above is based on a famous Soviet communist poster. Full disclosure always helps to clarify things.)

This tenet was essential to early communist theory because totalitarianism requires that people give up or suppress what up until that time seemed like in-born traits (such as individualism, competitiveness, etc.), and if one concedes that these traits are inescapable, then communism fails as a theory.

Fast forward a century or two and the same basic notion — that existing “human nature” is not in-born but is culturally constructed — has now been seized by feminists, who declare that rape is an artifact of living in a “patriarchal” society and that if we completely changed human culture, rape would cease to exist.

While that may seem very nice and utopian and peachy-keen, needless to say it is almost certainly not true; and even if it was true, the transformation of global culture would be so immense and take so long that no one alive now will experience such a rape-free society in our lifetimes, or likely for several centuries after that.

In the meantime, we have to live in the existing patriarchal rape-culture we currently have. That is reality, like it or not.

Conservatives will protest my analysis and claim that liberals know full well that they are “changing the subject” by suggesting a completely ludicrous “solution” to the issue of how to stop a rape in progress (i.e. “Don’t rape!”). Conservatives will say that liberals, facing an argument in which they know they have been defeated, use the tried and true debating method of then ever-so-slightly altering the topic under discussion and then making a devastating comeback on a different subject.

But I’m quite convinced that liberals are not doing this consciously or on purpose. They are so subsumed in liberal groupthink that they literally cannot even grasp what conservatives are proposing, and truly and honestly think that the solution to “rape” is to “Don’t rape.” And conservatives for their part look at this facile non sequitur and in return have no idea what liberals are even talking about.

Further, on a more prosaic level, most liberals never heard about Rep. Salazar’s statement, so they have no idea what SooperMexican is even riffing on, and can’t understand why he suddenly started ranting about rape. Liberals and conservatives to a great extent dwell in separate “fact-spaces,” and consequently can never have a conversation based on facts, since we don’t share facts.

Another key aspect never mentioned in the ongoing Tweet-War is that in the liberal worldview,

Rape = Men = Masculinity = Patriarchy = Conservatism = Conservatives

such that conservatives have no moral authority or even permission to mention rape, since they are all either rapists themselves or at a minimum the defenders of “rape culture” and thus the cause of all rapes.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this debate forever, with an endless stream of words, because it’s rather fascinating in a sociological way, but I think you get my original point, which was:

Try saying all this in a Tweet.

Sure, I could unleash 357 consecutive Tweets to get the same message across, but in that case why not just use the antediluvian form of communication known as “blogging,” in which there is no limit on characters?

Conclusion:

The solution to the Twitter problem is “Don’t Tweet.”

Read bullet |

Pro-Taliban terrorist tries to blow up Oakland bank — and blame it on the Right — to start civil war

Friday, February 8th, 2013 - by Zombie

Breaking:

A would-be Islamic terrorist tried to ignite a civil war this morning by bombing a bank in Oakland, California, saying that “he wanted the bank bombing to be blamed on anti-U.S. government militias”; luckily, the FBI thwarted his plan:

A man who was hoping to start a civil war in the United States with a terrorist attack in the Bay Area was arrested early Friday after trying to detonate what he thought was a car bomb at a Bank of America branch in Oakland, federal prosecutors said.

Matthew Aaron Llaneza, 28, of San Jose was taken into custody near the bank at 303 Hegenberger Road after pressing a cell-phone trigger device that was supposed to detonate the explosives inside an SUV and bring down the building, prosecutors said.

His supposed accomplice was an undercover FBI agent who had been meeting with him since Nov. 30, according to an FBI declaration filed in federal court. The declaration said the FBI had built the purported bomb, which posed no threat to the public.

The FBI agent quoted Llaneza as saying he supports the Taliban and wants to engage in violent jihad.

In the Nov. 30 meeting with an agent who posed as someone connected to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Llaneza said he wanted the bank bombing to be blamed on anti-U.S. government militias, triggering a government crackdown, a right-wing response and a civil war, the FBI declaration said….

Additional details, if any, will appear here as we learn of them.

UPDATE 1:

Here’s a photo of the bank branch at 303 Hegenberger he tried to destroy:

UPDATE 2:

Here is the official FBI press release about the incident, released a few minutes ago:

OAKLAND, CA—Federal agents arrested Matthew Aaron Llaneza, age 28, of San Jose, California, this morning after he allegedly attempted to detonate a vehicle-borne explosive device at a bank branch in Oakland.

Llaneza’s arrest was the culmination of an undercover operation during which he was closely monitored by the FBI’s South Bay Joint Terrorism Task Force. Unbeknownst to Llaneza, the explosive device that he allegedly attempted to use had been rendered inoperable by law enforcement and posed no threat to the public. Llaneza was charged this morning by criminal complaint with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against property used in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, on November 30, 2012, Llaneza met with a man who led him to believe he was connected with the Taliban and the mujahidin in Afghanistan. In reality, this man was an undercover FBI agent. At this initial meeting, Llaneza proposed conducting a car-bomb attack against a bank in the San Francisco Bay Area. He proposed structuring the attack to make it appear that the responsible party was an umbrella organization for a loose collection of anti-government militias and their sympathizers. Llaneza’s stated goal was to trigger a governmental crackdown, which he expected would trigger a right-wing counter-response against the government followed by, he hoped, civil war.

The complaint further alleges that Llaneza subsequently selected the Bank of America branch at 303 Hegenberger Road in Oakland as the target for the attack. Llaneza ultimately specified a spot next to a support column of the bank building as a good location for the bomb, expressed a desire for the bomb to bring down the entire bank building, and offered to drive the car bomb to the bank at the time of the attack.

According to the complaint, in January and February 2013, Llaneza and the undercover agent constructed the purported explosive device inside a sport utility vehicle (SUV) parked inside a storage facility in Hayward, California. As part of the process of assembling the device, Llaneza purchased two cell phones to be used in creating and operating the trigger device for the car bomb. One of these cell phones was incorporated into the trigger device itself. The other was reserved for use on the night of the attack.

The criminal complaint alleges that on the evening of February 7, 2013, Llaneza drove the SUV containing the purported explosive device to the target bank branch in Oakland. He parked the SUV beneath an overhang of the bank building where he armed the trigger device. He then proceeded on foot to a nearby location a safe distance from the bank building, where he met the undercover agent. Once there, Llaneza attempted to detonate the bomb by using the second cell phone he had purchased to place two calls to the trigger device attached to the car bomb. Federal agents then arrested him.

UPDATE 3:

A few more sickening details at the Huffington Post:

[Llaneza] laughed and hugged the undercover agent after the agent showed him the SUV in a storage unit rented by the FBI. Llaneza also stated he wanted to travel to Afghanistan so he could train Taliban fighters, according to authorities.

UPDATE 4:

Someone with the name Matthew Aaron Llaneza founded an Arizona LLC in 2008 called “Sand Fire Tactical.” The State of Arizona’s official “Arizona Corporation Commission” has scans of the LLC’s Articles of Organization, which you can also see here:


Same guy? Most likely. Does the name “Sand Fire Tactical” have anything to do with his earlier assault weapons conviction? (I.e. does the “tactical” refer to tactical weapons?) He describes his business type as “Internet sales, light manufacturing.” Was he making illegal weaponry and selling it over the Internet? Or was this business completely innocuous?

UPDATE 5:

The Phoenix Fox affiliate is searching for people who might have known Matthew Llaneza, adding to the likelihood of an Arizona connection:

Good afternoon… Kristen Keogh here. We are trying to find someone who knows a man named Matthew Llaneza….KSAZ FOX 10 News ‏myfoxphoenix

UPDATE 6:

“Findthecompany.com” claims that

Sand Fire Tactical LLC had $58,000 in 2011 revenue (Estimated data).

Still not clear what “Sand Fire Tactical” sold, or if this revenue data is accurate or just a generic estimate.

UPDATE 7:

Someone named Matthew Llaneza graduated from Red Mountain High School in 2003. Anyone who graduated from high school in 2003 would now be exactly 28 years old…the same age as the suspect. And where is Red Mountain High School? Mesa, Arizona, naturally, the same city where Sand Fire Tactical was founded.

UPDATE 8:

Lots of new details in a San Jose Mercury News article published 4 minutes ago:

Court records stemming from a 2011 weapons conviction show that the one-time Marine likely suffered from mental illness that included bouts of paranoia, suicidal tendencies, hallucinations and voices in his head, and had a vast working knowledge of weaponry.

Those same records show that Llaneza’s father long had concerns about his son’s stability, keeping him at arm’s length after he returned to San Jose from several years living with grandparents in Arizona and having abruptly converted to Islam.

During the planning of the attack, Llaneza also allegedly said “he would dance with joy when the bomb exploded.” After the attack, Llaneza had intended to flee by boat to Pakistan and then travel to Afghanistan to train with Taliban fighters….

Records indicate that the U.S.-born Llaneza lived with his grandparents in Mesa, Ariz., until 2011, when he moved back to California to live with his father in North San Jose in an RV parked out front. During his time in Arizona, Llaneza described himself as an “armorist” who was proficient in weapons assembly, and records show that in February 2008 founded Sand Fire Tactical LLC, which he described in its articles of organization as an “internet sales, light manufacturing” firm located in Mesa.

The complaint describes Llaneza as a detail-oriented person intent on an eye-catching act of terrorism that he believed would foment civil unrest. Court records in Santa Clara County seemingly set the foundation for those thoughts after he was convicted in 2011 for illegally having an AK-47 assault rifle and accompanying high-capacity magazines he purportedly purchased and registered in Arizona.

That discovery came out of an emergency call April 17 that year to the home of Steve Llaneza, who had recently allowed his son to live in an RV outside. Appearing under the influence of alcohol and marijuana — with a history of hard-drug use — the son threatened to kill himself and was hospitalized under a mental health hold.

Ensuing investigations by San Jose police led to them finding the assault rifle and magazines, which prompted officers to take Matthew Llaneza out of the hospital and into custody. He was convicted of the weapons offenses, and given a suspended sentence after having served six months in County Jail.

During the investigation and a corresponding preliminary hearing, Llaneza was described as being in and out of mental-health treatment, instead self-medicating with medically-obtained marijuana. He told interrogating officers about suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress from what he said were attempts by Arizona gangs to recruit him, expressing a fear of drug cartels and saying, “Someday you are going to find me dead in the desert.”

By the time of that 2011 arrest, Llaneza told police he was going by the name of Tarq Kahn and that he believed “secret police or government is trying to follow him.” His father told investigators that his son had briefly served in the Marine Corps before being discharged for an undisclosed reason.

Initially, Llaneza proposed attacking the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or another unspecified target. He later decided that there would too much security at the Federal Reserve Bank and instead began scouting Bank of America locations in Oaklandbecause of the symbolism of the name and his belief of Oakland being a center of protests.

UPDATE 9:

As of 4:55pm, there is absolutely zilch on the Web about the name “Tarq Kahn” aside from that SJ Mercury News article. Could “Tarq” be a misspelling of “Tariq”? If so, there’d be little chance of digging up any info about him anyway, as “Tariq Khan” is an extremely common name.

UPDATE 10:

Here’s the FBI Criminal Complaint and Affidavit leading to Llaneza’s arrest.
(Thanks to reader Paula B. for bringing this link to our attention.)

Read bullet |

“F*ck you, Jew”: Brutal attack by Palestinian protester at SF anti-Israel protest

Tuesday, November 20th, 2012 - by Zombie

As noted by Gateway Pundit and Jawa Report, at the anti-Israel protest in San Francisco on November 16 (which I mentioned in my previous Tatler post), the pro-Palestinian protesters went berserk, tore up Israeli flags, screamed “Intifada!” and when they encountered an Israel supporter filming the protest, they brutally assaulted him:

Luckily the police were nearby and apparently arrested the attacker, and, as shown in the video, before he is led away he yells at an Israel supporter, “Fuck you, Jew! Fuck you, Jew!

Yeah, these protests have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Nothing at all.

Read bullet |

As the war in Gaza heats up, so too do the anti-Israel protests in the U.S.

Friday, November 16th, 2012 - by Zombie

Every outbreak of hostilities in Israel and the Palestinian Territories is accompanied by a parallel protest outbreak in the U.S., as supporters of the Palestinian position and the Israeli position face off wherever there is an Israeli consulate or a large Arab-American population (primarily in California, New York and Michigan).

The latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no exception. Last night, San Francisco (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/15/18725746.php), New York (http://nycal.mayfirst.org/node/10234) and Los Angeles (http://la.indymedia.org/calendar/event_display_detail.php?event_id=9194&day=15&month=11&year=2012) all saw protests in front of Israeli consulates, although none of them received much if any media coverage.

Luckily, PJMedia contributor Ringo swung by the L.A. protest just as it was wrapping up, and took this video of a Palestinian supporter spitting at the feet of the five pro-Israel supporters on hand, after a passing Palestinian man called the Israelis “Nazis”:

Here’s the spitter, second from the right in the green hijab, smiling with her friends earlier in the protest:

For the last 10 or 15 years, the script for these Near East conflicts and attendant American protests is always the same: Palestinian militants launch mortars, rockets or suicide attacks at Israel; Israel eventually gets fed up and launches a punitive raid to find and root out the attackers; the media (and leftist activists) ignore the original Palestinian violence which precipitated the raid, and dub the incident “unprovoked Israeli aggression”; protesters show up at consulates in major cities around the world and condemn the Israelis but not the Palestinians; everybody accuses everybody else of being a Nazi and a terrorist and a war criminal; the Israelis kill some of the attackers, then withdraw, and everything settles back down to “normal” (i.e. a tense existential standoff).

There is an additional protest scheduled for today in San Francisco, but at the moment it’s pouring rain, so I’ll likely skip it. If any readers have links to coverage of protests in other cities, post them in the comments and I’ll try to keep this post updated with the latest on the “homefront” war.


All photos and video in this post courtesy of Ringo of Ringo’s Pictures.

UPDATE:

- ACT! for America Houston has photos from the anti-Israel protest outside Houston’s Galleria mall.

- NBC Chicago reports “Hundreds Take Part in Anti-Israeli Protest” outside Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters.

- KSDK covered a small protest in St. Louis.

Read bullet |

The 7 Worst Democratic Ads of 2012

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 - by Zombie

The 2012 election season has produced a bumper crop of pro-Democratic advertisements that are so insulting, juvenile, creepy, violent, obscene, self-defeating and unintentionally counter-productive that just based on these ads alone Romney deserves to win.

Have the Democrats lost their minds? Judging from these seven pro-Obama ads, they haven’t just lost their minds, but their souls too.

If you know any remaining independent undecideds waiting for some advertisement to tell them how to vote, sit them down for ten minutes to watch these seven spots, and I guarantee they’ll not only vote Romney but spend the rest of today volunteering for the Republicans.

If you’ve been a news junkie these last couple weeks then you’ve likely seen all of these before, but for posterity’s sake I’ve gathered them all together in one place so that, whatever the outcome today, historians can pinpoint the moment that politics died.

1. Murdering Republicans Is Funny!

It’s impossible to go any lower than this. Romney voters are gleefully massacred due to their political beliefs, which apparently render them inhuman, therefore allowing liberals to kill them without compunction. Watch and laugh as Republicans are beheaded, shot, blown to smithereens, and have their hearts carved out with chainsaws. If that wasn’t bad enough, all this carnage is enacted by a cast of racist stereotypes.

Needless to say, if a conservative had made an ad like this, he’d be in jail now.

2. Obscene Grannies Threaten to “Cockpunch” Romney Right in the Nutsack

Liberal nonprofit MoveOn.org hired Michael Moore to make this painfully unfunny anti-Romney ad, featuring foul-mouthed grannies threatening to “burn this motherfucker down” if Romney wins and then to “cockpunch” Romney “right in the nutsack.” Presumably, someone, somewhere, read the script for this piece and then saw the rough cut and actually thought it was humorous. And politically effective.

Actually, it is quite effective, but not quite in the way the makers intended. I tried to describe this ad to my own Democratic-voting mother (who doesn’t have a computer), and she absolutely refused to believe that such an ad could exist. So I brought my laptop over to her house and showed her the ad as proof that my description was accurate; she was so repulsed and offended that she announced afterward that she wasn’t going to vote this year because she didn’t want to be associated with that kind of language. Thank you, MoveOn!

Read bullet |

And now, a message from Berkeley

Saturday, November 3rd, 2012 - by Zombie

Spotted on College Avenue, just a couple blocks from the University of California:

It’s always important to remember a key fact that is rarely discussed in polite company:

The Democratic Party is composed of two factions: Extreme leftists, like the ones who made this graffiti in Berkeley, who hate capitalism, hate America, and want to usher in a socialist revolution; and middle-of-the-road blue-collar Americans who only want the best for themselves but who have been tricked into making an alliance with radicals whose very goal is to destroy the fabric of middle-class society.

The great struggle of the last few decades is between, on one hand, radical strategists who strive to hide their true intent so they can deceive average Americans into facilitating the revolution; and on the other hand, conservative/libertarian strategists who realize that in order to overwhelmingly win every election all they need to do is expose the extremism and clever masquerade of the progressive “vanguard” leading flyover country voters astray.

And with that, we return to your regular programming.

Read bullet |

Obama campaign sign in L.A. modeled after Fascist Mussolini portrait

Thursday, November 1st, 2012 - by Zombie

PJMedia contributor Ringo came across these intriguing Obama campaign signs yesterday in front of a house in Hollywood:

Here’s the sign’s stylized Obama portrait visible more clearly:

Now, you’re likely thinking to yourself: “That Obama portrait looks vaguely familiar. Have I seen it somewhere before?”

And the answer is Yes. Because this particular Obama campaign sign portrait was apparently modeled after various iconic portraits of Fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

Not possible? Judge for yourself:


Almost every official portait of Mussolini released by the Fascist Party had the identical facial expression found in the Obama campaign sign.


This well-known 1934 Fascist painting of Mussolini is housed in London’s Imperial War Museum.


This 1920′s Fascist propaganda painting of Mussolini also seems to have been an inspiration for the Obama portrait, including the deep-set eyes.

Here are a couple more Fascist photos, just to be thorough — and there are dozens more similar pictures of the unmistakable “Mussolini scowl” easily findable on the Web:

Now, I don’t know where this Los Angeles homeowner obtained this particular Obama sign — did he make it by hand himself? Was it manufactured by some outside pro-Obama group? Or is it an official sign released by the Obama campaign? (Post any tips on its origins in the comments section below.)

[UPDATE: Commenters docweasel and Para point out that these campaign signs are widely available online from various sources and even have their own blog and do seem to be sold by a left-leaning pro-Obama company ("Signs are Union Made. ... Each sign has the authentic Union Shop stamp printed right on it.") but it's still not clear if the "Obama Lawn Yard Signs" company manufactures them or simply distributes signs made by the Obama campaign itself.]

Whoever made it, the Mussolini/Fascist/dictator vibe is undeniable. And even if you were entirely unfamiliar with the famous Mussolini scowl replicated in the 2012 campaign sign, why would any Democrat voter find this particular Obama portrait appealing or impressive? It reeks of Big Brother-ish totalitarianism all on its own, even without an historical precedent. Why depict your lovable candidate as a menacing, frowning tyrant?

Could this be the progressives’ secret love of totalitarianism peeking through once again? Many have already demonstrated the progressive/totalitarian connection. In fact, our own Ed Driscoll previously noted back in the 2008 campaign some extremely disturbing graphic parallels between Obama campaign/cult posters and those of earlier, uh, shall we say movements.

If you are a progressive reading this, you likely imagine yourself the polar opposite of the Fascists, but I ask you to stop and ponder a moment how you, your belief system and your behavior are viewed by others. When we see people demanding greater government power and expressing unquestioned devotion to a charismatic leader, we think “incipient totalitarianism.” You only exacerbate that impression by imitating the very design philosophy of previous totalitarian movements.

Are you sure you’re on the right side of history?

(Obama campaign sign photos all by Ringo of ringospictures.com.)

Read bullet |

Projected hurricane storm track for next eight days

Monday, October 29th, 2012 - by Zombie

Read bullet |

Obama’s bold second-term agenda summed up in one picture

Sunday, October 28th, 2012 - by Zombie

A lot of pundits and voters have been wondering: What exactly is different between Obama’s 2012 campaign promises and his original 2008 campaign promises? Because to the casual observer, he seems to be running for president as a challenger, as if this was his first time.

A few hours ago I ran across a campaign sign in front of a house in Pacific Grove, California which seemed to sum up Obama’s promised second-term agenda:

Re-use, recycle, rehash!

(In case it’s not clear, this efficiency-minded Obama voter simply took an “Obama ’08″ sign and scribbled out part of the “0″ and part of the “8″ to make it look vaguely like “Obama ’12.”) A perfect metaphor for Obama’s idea-free campaign!

Read bullet |

Polls with Large Voter Samples All Favor Romney; Smaller, Less Reliable Polls All Favor Obama. Why?

Wednesday, October 24th, 2012 - by Zombie

RealClearPolitics publishes a continuously updated average of all major national presidential polls — as of this evening, their chart looks like this:


(Note that the RCP chart is updated frequently, so that by the time you read this, it may be slightly different.)

But whenever I check the RCP average, including today, I notice something odd: The larger the polling sample size, the more the poll favors Mitt Romney.

I’ve copied the RCP data and pasted it in here in a format that I can re-order. First, here’s how RCP organizes the chart, which they do chronologically, with the most recent poll at the top:

Poll Date Sample MoE Romney (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 10/15 – 10/23 47.8 47.2 Romney +0.6
Rasmussen Reports 10/21 – 10/23 1500 LV 3.0 50 46 Romney +4
ABC News/Wash Post 10/20 – 10/23 1394 LV 3.0 49 48 Romney +1
IBD/TIPP 10/18 – 10/23 938 LV 3.5 44 47 Obama +3
Gallup 10/17 – 10/23 2700 LV 2.0 50 47 Romney +3
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 – 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3
CBS News 10/17 – 10/20 790 LV 4.0 46 48 Obama +2
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 – 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 10/18 – 10/20 800 LV 3.5 47 50 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/15 – 10/18 1000 LV 3.1 49 47 Romney +2

But what if we simply re-ordered the polls not chronologically, but according to sample size, with the largest at the top? This is what it would look like:

Poll Date Sample MoE Romney (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 10/15 – 10/23 47.8 47.2 Romney +0.6
Gallup 10/17 – 10/23 2700 LV 2.0 50 47 Romney +3
Rasmussen Reports 10/21 – 10/23 1500 LV 3.0 50 46 Romney +4
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 – 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/20 – 10/23 1394 LV 3.0 49 48 Romney +1
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/15 – 10/18 1000 LV 3.1 49 47 Romney +2
IBD/TIPP 10/18 – 10/23 938 LV 3.5 44 47 Obama +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 – 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie
WashTimes/JZ Analytics* 10/18 – 10/20 800 LV 3.5 47 50 Obama +3
CBS News 10/17 – 10/20 790 LV 4.0 46 48 Obama +2

Notice the unmistakable trend?

All polls with 1000 or more respondents favor Romney; all polls with smaller than 1000 respondents favor Obama (or are tied).

Statisticians will tell you that the larger the sample size, the more reliable the poll. This fact is reflected in RCP’s “Margin of Error” (MoE) column, which shows a lower margin of error, and thus a greater level of reliability, for the large-sample pro-Romney polls. Each and every pro-Obama poll has a higher margin of error, and is thus less reliable.

These are the facts as they currently stand, and they’ve been true like this almost every day since soon after the first debate when Romney surged in popularity.

But Why?

The question we must now ask ourselves is why only the weak polls with low response rates favor Obama.

Read bullet |

Big Bird, Binders and Bayonets

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012 - by Zombie

Romney serenades Obama after tonight’s final debate with a freshly reworded version of Baubles, Bangles and Beads:
 


 

Big Bird, Binders and Bayonets

Big Bird, binders,
Biden’s big grin
snicker snicker
Big Bird, binders,
sharp bayonets!

Shallow
soundbites
simply seem small
to the voters
Big Bird, binders, and bayonets!

Each time you debate me
Next day’s meme starts with “B”
So
I guess
I’ll give
you the Big Boot
in November
that’s what Obama gets –
talking binders Big Bird bayonets.

 


 

Here’s a karaoke video of Baubles, Bangles and Beads to sing along with (chosen because it retains the melody’s [and the lyrics'] original and correct waltz rhythm, not found in most pop versions):

Read bullet |

Obama checks into North African-themed Vegas resort for debate prep

Monday, October 1st, 2012 - by Zombie

Is Obama tone-deaf in the extreme — or is he blatantly rubbing our noses in it?

What else could explain his bizarre decision, after weeks of violence and anti-American rioting in cities across North Africa and the Muslim world, to check into a Las Vegas resort with a North African theme?

As reported by the Business Insider, Obama chose the new Westin Lake Las Vegas Resort to do his debate preparation:

President Barack Obama arrived in Nevada last night to begin three days of debate preparation at the Westin Lake Las Vegas Resort, a luxurious golf community just a few miles from the Las Vegas strip.
According to the White House pool report, the “resort is a strange mix of desert sand pits, green lawns, palm trees and new homes. We passed a replica of the Ponte Vecchio and some luxurious lakeside estates, also unfinished lots and a browning golf course. The president’s hotel has a Middle Eastern theme and a view of the lake from the lobby.”

Actually, that White House Pool report is inaccurate: Obama’s new hotel doesn’t have a Middle Eastern theme, but rather a North African Muslim theme, with an emphasis on Morocco. From the Westin Lake Las Vegas Resort and Spa home page click on “Overview” -> “View Hotel Map” to access this detailed pdf of the hotel floorplan, which reveals that just about everything in the hotel or on the grounds is named after North African, Islamic and/or Moroccan places and themes. Here’s the main part of the hotel grounds:


(These names are confirmed by the hotel’s online list of meeting rooms.)

As you can see, most of the hotel’s elements have North African, Moroccan or Arabic names, which are listed here (along with explanations):

Casbah is the name of the Old Town quarter of Algiers, the capital of Algeria. It can also refer to the oldest walled area of any North African city.

Medinas refers to the medinas of North Africa, which are the ancient maze-like urban areas mostly in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Medina is also of course the city where Islam was founded in Saudi Arabia.

Souk refers to a marketplace anywhere in the Arabic-speaking parts of North Africa and the Near East.

Mushrabiya is an architectural feature common in North Africa and elsewhere in the Arab world.

Baraka is Arabic for “Blessing” — and more interestingly is the actual birth name of Barack Obama Sr., who later changed his first name from “Baraka” to “Barack.” So, in a sense, “Baraka” is also President Obama’s first name. (How many Nevada resorts have a gambling casino accidentally name after the President?)

Soltane is the place name of various sites in Tunisia.

Tajine (usually spelled “tagine”) is a traditional dish served in Tunisia, Morocco, and elsewhere in North Africa.

Sandsabar” is a pun on the name of Zanzibar, the former Arab slave-trading center on the east coast of Africa.

Moulay refers to Moulay Driss Zerhoun, the town where Islam was introduced into Morocco, and which has a Muslims-only section.

Aleuj refers to a famous gateway in Meknes, Morocco. Interestingly, according to the link, the term “aleuj” means “apostate” and refers to the fact that the gate was built by a former Christian who had converted to Islam.

Casablanca, Rabat, Fez, Tangier and Marrakesh are of course the largest cities in Morocco.

Asilah, Kenitra, Agadir and Safi are all smaller Moroccan towns.

Menzeh is a place name associated with various locales in Morocco.

Majorelle is a famous garden in Marrakesh, Morocco.

Arabesque is not a place but simply an Islamic art style.

(“Nuala,” “Marssa,” “Skala,” “Andalusian” and “Sultana” just seem to be random words tossed into the mix because they sounded exotic, not because they had any unique connection to North Africa.)

Is Obama trying to send some kind of message? And if so — what message, and to whom?

After the events of the last weeks in North Africa, why – out of all the hotels and resorts in Nevada — would Obama pick the only one in an Islamic North African theme?


Pure speculation from this point on:

Many hotels and resorts in and around Las Vegas have over-the-top “themes,” but it’s all just window-dressing: flamboyant decorations to lure in tourists. In most cases, including the Westin Lake Las Vegas, it seems as if the designers just flipped through a book of images or place names from whichever theme was chosen, and implemented them haphazardly, without ever staying “true” to the theme. Thus, the Excalibur is not actually a medieval castle with medieval plumbing, any more than Caesar’s Palace is made out of hand-chiseled white marble. Slaves did not build the Luxor.

Thus, it’s not as if the Westin Lake Las Vegas is an actual North African-style hotel operating on Islamic principles; far from it. It’s still a typical high-end American hotel, that just happens to have North African decorations. So, if that’s the case, why choose it?

My theory is that Obama wanted to retreat into an “Orientalist” fantasy of what North Africa should be like, a dreamy, exotic and totally non-threatening resort area. Retiring to this particular hotel is Obama’s way of suppressing the ugly reality of what the North Africa of 2012 has become, rife with anti-Americanism, Al Qaeda and out-of-control revolutions, and instead allowing him to drift in haze of hookah smoke through a colonialist’s dreamworld of a North African Neverland.

Read bullet |

WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters

Sunday, September 30th, 2012 - by Zombie

One of the most amazing — and significant — statistics of this election season has gone almost completely unnoticed:

Only 9% of sampled households gave an answer to pollsters in 2012:

It has become increasingly difficult to contact potential respondents and to persuade them to participate. The percentage of households in a sample that are successfully interviewed – the response rate – has fallen dramatically. At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was 36% in 1997 and is just 9% today.

The general decline in response rates is evident across nearly all types of surveys, in the United States and abroad. At the same time, greater effort and expense are required to achieve even the diminished response rates of today. These challenges have led many to question whether surveys are still providing accurate and unbiased information.

You read that correctly: In any attempted poll or survey, only 9% of attempted contacts come back with an actual response.

That means 91% of sampled households are NOT having their opinions recorded by pollsters.

Breaking down the numbers a bit, we can see that this is due to two reasons: 38% of the households contacted were unreachable in the first place, leaving only a 62% “contact rate.” But among that 62%, only 14% “cooperated” with the pollsters; the remaining 86% of contactees presumably slammed down the phone or simply refused to answer. Since 86% of 62% of the population are non-cooperators, that leaves us with the astonishing conclusion that…

53% of Americans actively refuse to answer poll questions.

The real breakdown chart should look like this:

38% could not be reached
53% were contacted but actively refused to answer
9% cooperated and answered the polling questions

Or, put another way:

Out of every 7 people contacted by pollsters, only 1 will answer the polling question, while the remaining 6 refuse to answer.

Six to one, people; six to one. Think about that for a second.

What are those 53% thinking — and why would they purposely refuse to cooperate with pollsters?

Furthermore, where are those unreachable 38%? At work? On drugs? Curled up in a fetal position under the couch?

Pew goes on to claim that, despite the appallingly low cooperation rate in 2012, they think their estimates of public opinion are fairly accurate in any case.

That may have been true in past years, but we won’t know this year until after the election how accurate the polls were.

But now also consider these newly released stats showing that distrust of the media has hit an all-time high, and most importantly that Republicans and independents are twice as likely to distrust the media as Democrats:

There’s only one possible conclusion to reach: That the non-cooperating 86% of contactees are twice as likely to be Republicans and independents as they are to be Democrats.

This imputes a HUGE skew into all poll results, a skew that is rarely acknowledged.

Who are the 91%???

Are you one of them?

Did you miss a call from a pollster because you were at work?

Did you refuse to answer a question from a pollster, once contacted?

If so, why did you refuse?

Even if you don’t answer poll calls, do they record your non-response as support for Obama anyway?

We have the stats. Now let’s flesh them out with some anecdotes.


UPDATE:

Here’s a summary of some of the anecdotes and reasons for non-response from the comments section below; the number preceding each line is the number of commenters who cited that rationale:

28 – I do answer, but I often lie and give false answers, just to screw with them.

24 – I have caller ID and never answer any call from any number that is either unknown or blocked.

17 – I do not respond because I suspect that callers identifying themselves as “pollsters” are more likely telemarketers, fraudsters or deceptive political operatives engaged in “push-polling.”

16 – I do not respond because of potential privacy violation, that pollsters can correlate my answers with my identity; “I fear that they will use my political beliefs against my family.”

14 – I do not cooperate because I consider the polling industry an arm of the biased media, trying to influence the electorate.

13 – I only answer calls from people I already know; if I accidentally answer a robo-call or a call from a stranger, I just hang up.

11 – I refuse to divulge any personal opinions or data to an anonymous stranger, who could be ill-intentioned for all I know.

10 – “Why should I waste my time talking to these people who will skew the results anyway?”

7 – I’m among the 38% “unreachable” because I do not have a landline.

5 – I’d only cooperate with pollsters if they compensated me for helping them.

4 – It’s just a waste of time; I have better things to do with my life.

4 – I would answer calls from any pollster which I recognize from caller ID as being unbiased, but otherwise I don’t.

3 – I suspect that if I answer once, my number will be added to lists of positive respondents, precipitating more calls.

2 – After I burst out laughing when questioned if I supported Obama, the pollster hung up on me.

2 – I never used to answer pollsters, but recently I have started answering, to counter the inaccuracies in earlier polls.

1 – I hang up if I “don’t like the questions.”

1 – I decline to answer because if I say I’m not voting for Obama they will sneer at me as a racist.

1 – I don’t answer because I think that polls are a corrupting influence on public policy, that political decisions are based on poll results, not on what is actually best for the country.

1 – A pollster questioned me once. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

6 – I refuse to cooperate with pollsters for all of the reasons above.

Read bullet |

Space Shuttle Endeavour Flyover Photo

Friday, September 21st, 2012 - by Zombie

The Space Shuttle “Endeavour” took its final flight today over the Bay Area on the back of a 747 on its way to the California Science Center museum in Los Angeles. By chance I happened to be standing in the perfect spot to get a picture of it as it flew overhead at a very low altitude:

Read bullet |