Friday, April 29, 2011


IGNORANCE:  the state or fact of being ignorant;  lack of knowledge, education, or awareness; UNTAUGHT

STUPIDITY (STUPID):  slow of mind; obtuse; unable to learn

I was listening to Rush's show this afternoon, with guest host Mark Stein.... late in the show a man called in regarding the birther issue and Obama's legitimacy to hold office... Mr. Stein listened respectfully, countered with a few remarks, and then cut to a commercial.  When he returned, he went on a 10 minute complete tirade about this issue..... and his point was basically that Obama was legit and could NOT help the circumstances of his birth.  And THAT WAS THE ONLY THING OBAMA COULDN'T BE FAULTED FOR.  He CAN be faulted for everything he's done to destroy the United States and all it stands for.

And then he said - and while I knew this, his comment really provoked a lot of thought - he said the problem with the United States is NOT Obama - but the 53% of Americans stupid enough to buy off on him and elect him to the most powerful office in the WORLD!  And he's right!  The mess we are in, and getting deeper in, is not Obama's fault!  Obama said what he would do - and he's doing it!  The electorate either thought he WOULD and they wanted the destruction of the this country, or they thought 'no way - he won't do THAT', or McCain wasn't conservative enough (F*** ANYONE who voted for Obama based on THAT) or because they had 'racial guilt' (whites) or because he was a bro' (blacks) or WTFever the reason was. 

Obama is being allowed to destroy this country because the American people are STUPID!  Pure and simple.  They cannot claim ignorance - HE SAID WHAT HE WOULD DO!

Wednesday, April 27, 2011


Today Obama released his 'long form' birth certificate, stating that there was no time for this nonsense; also stating that he had more important things to do........ and at the end of the press conference, he promptly got on a plane and went to do the Oprah show, and tonight will be attending fundraisers.  Oh yeah..... that's really important!

Check this link

Tuesday, April 26, 2011


Soros hedge fund invests $811 Million to buy Petrobras stake
August 15, 2008

London: Billionaire investor George Soros bought an $811 million stake in Petroleo Brasileiro (Petrobras) in the second quarter, making the Brazilian state-controlled oil company his investment fund's largest holding.

As of June 30, the stake in Petrobras, as the Rio de Janeiro-based oil producer is known, made up 22 per cent of the $3.68 billion of stocks and American depositary receipts held by Soros Fund Management, according to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Petrobras has since slumped 28 per cent.

Soros has increased his mining and commodities holdings, a move that accelerated in the first quarter with purchases of such companies as Cia. Vale do Rio Doce, the world's largest iron-ore producer, and Talisman Energy, a Canadian oil and gas company. In November, Petrobras announced the discovery of Tupi, a field with as much as 8 billion barrels of reserves, making it the largest find in the Americas since 1976.

"Petrobras has something that other oil companies don't have: oil - lots of it and they're going to find more," said Ricardo Kob-ayashi, equity fund manager with UBS Pactual in Rio de Janeiro.

"If you can buy now and hang on, if you have the staying power, it's great."

Tupi is part of a new deepwater offshore region known as the pre-salt that may contain as much as 50 billion barrels, according to Peter Wells, oil analyst with the UK's Neftex Petroleum Consultants.

The drop in Petrobras' US-traded common shares since June 30 would have reduced the value of Soros's disclosed stake by $235 million.

Soros Fund Management didn't report holding any Petrobras shares at the end of the first quarter. It did disclose much smaller stakes in the Brazilian oil company during 2007, including 150,000 depositary shares, with a market value of about $17.3 million at December 31.

The hedge fund company also had calls on another 35,000 shares at December 31. Petrobras shares traded at an average closing price of $64.83 each during the second quarter, when Soros bought the stake.

The shares on Friday dropped 91 centavos, or 1.8%, to $50.68 in New York, valuing Petrobras at $204.8 billion, the world's 11th-biggest company by market capitalization.

January 20, 2009 – Obama is inaugurated

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
WSJ    August 18, 2009

You read that headline correctly.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.  Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 BILLION and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount.  Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees.  Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side.  If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.?  The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November [2008] elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.  But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor.  In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification.  Late last month [July, 2009] the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf.  Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow.  But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter.  Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.

What is amazing is how our watchdog media neglected to mention any possible motive for Mr. Obama’s surprising double standard.

Cost of the U.S. Presidency - $2 Billion

Thursday, March 17, 2011
UPDATE: Obama departed to Brazil where he personally strengthens Soros' oil interests there. []


Chicago Tribune - Chicago, Ill.
Author: Thomas A Corfman, Tribune staff reporter
Date: Oct 28, 2004

Investing in a downtown dream [Donald Trump] will be attending a ceremony Thursday for the demolition of the former Chicago Sun-Times building.  Trump's 90- story tower will be financed through several sources.  INVESTORS Total of $160 million [George Soros] Fortress Investment Group LLC Grove Capital LLP, a spinoff of Soros Fund Management Blackacre Institutional Capital Management LLC CONSTRUCTION LENDER $650 million Deutsche Bank Chicago Tribune.

The building became known as the Trump International Hotel and Tower (a/k/a/ Trump Tower Chicago).  Trump announced in 2001 that the skyscraper would become the tallest building in the world, but after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the building plans were scaled back, and its design underwent several revisions. When topped out in 2009 it became the second-tallest building in the United States after Chicago's Willis Tower (formerly known as the Sears Tower).

Ever wonder what Soros’ return on his investment could entail?  Consider this…. General wisdom says Obama cannot win in 2012 if gas and food prices are up and job creation is down.  He can only win if there is a third party candidate in the race to split the conservative vote.  Donald Trump.


February 5, 2009

Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar said Wednesday that he has canceled the leases for oil and gas drilling on dozens of parcels of land near Utah's famed canyon country.

Salazar said the Bush administration rushed to sell oil and gas leases near Arches and Canyonlands national parks, Dinosaur National Monument and Nine Mile Canyon as President Bush prepared to leave office.

The decision affects 77 parcels of public land near national parks, monuments and sensitive landscapes that were put up for bid in December. The parcels total about 130,225 acres.

May 23, 2009

The EPA released new rules mandating the use of 36 billion gallons worth of renewable fuels, think ethanol, by 2020

December 24, 2010

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and oil refineries next year in an attempt to curb global warming. 

The move, coming on the same day the Interior Department unveiled a plan to protect a broader swath of the nation's wilderness, demonstrated that the Obama administration is prepared to push its environmental agenda through regulation where it has failed on Capitol Hill, potentially setting up a battle next year with congressional Republicans.

April 30, 2010

The US administration has banned oil drilling in new areas of the US coast while the cause of the oil spill off Louisiana is investigated.  This summer [2010] President Obama needlessly instituted, not one, but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico.

After rescinding his outright offshore drilling ban, President Obama has refused to issue any new drilling permits in the Gulf, a policy that the Energy Information Administration estimates will cut domestic offshore oil production by 13% this year

May 23, 2009

Interior Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years.

April 26, 2011

There are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the Arctic Ocean, off the coast of Alaska. But after spending five years and nearly $4 billion, Shell Oil Company has been forced to abandon its efforts to drill for oil in the region.

With gas at $4 per gallon and higher, one might think that more oil would be a good thing.  So what’s the road block?  The Environmental Protection Agency.  Fox News reports that the EPA is withholding necessary air permits because of a one square mile village of 245 people, 70 miles from the off-shore drilling site.


[Katie Couric speaking to Tim Russert on the Today Show, September 27, 2005 – President in question?  George Bush]

Couric: "I know the President is calling on the American public to conserve gasoline by driving less and he even sent a memo to all federal agency and department heads saying, the federal government, quote, 'must lead by example and further contribute to the relief effort by reducing its own fuel use during this difficult time.' How much political pressure is the President under given these rising fuel costs?"

Russert: "Enormous, Katie. It's the one issue that cuts across all class and geographic lines and as we just heard in Alexis' report it's not only gasoline cost for this fall but come this winter particularly in the Midwest and Northeast there's expectations that fuel heating costs can go up as much as 70 percent.  Enormous political pressure. Why? Those are the battleground, undecided states that Republicans must continue to control to retain and control both houses of Congress."

[Katie Couric talking with Anthony Mason on the CBS Evening News, March 23, 2011 – President in question?  Barack Obama]

Couric claimed they would "show you who is driving them [gas prices] up" before uttering the scary word "speculation."  The "Grim Reaper" of CBS, Anthony Mason, went on to report that oil futures trading is increasing the cost of oil, and therefore gasoline.  He interviewed Michael Greenberger formerly of CFTC who said "It is accelerating the price of oil products, gasoline, heating oil, crude oil, and other energy products, for no good reason."

Will gasoline prices be a problem for Obama?

The Los Angeles Times reports [7 April 2011] that White House fears gas prices could tank Obama. But they can’t be that worried. Here is a bit from an AP report on yesterday’s energy event in Fairless Hills, PA:
  • Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.  "If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."
Obama insisted that “There is no magic formula to driving gas prices down.”  That is true. But there are also things the government can do that will drive the price of gas up. And the Obama administration has done many of them including:

  • Immediately after taking office in 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah.
  • The EPA  announced new rules mandating the use of 36 billion gallons worth of renewable fuels (like ethanol) by 2020.
  • Last summer President Obama needlessly instituted, not one, but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • After rescinding his outright offshore drilling ban, President Obama has refused to issue any new drilling permits in the Gulf, a policy that the Energy Information Administration estimates will cut domestic offshore oil production by 13% this year
  • Interior Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years;
  • The Environmental Protection Agency has announced new global warming regulations for oil refineries
  • Interior Secretary Salazar announced new rules making it more difficult to develop energy resources on federal land.
  • The EPA is slowing a pipeline that would expand U.S. access to Canadian oil sands.

The link below is from the U.S. Energy Information Administration – it shows fuel prices from January, 2000 thru last month……

The EPA denied Shell the right to drill in remote Alaska (70 miles from the nearest village, population 245) after Shell invested 4 billion in research and exploration. An estimated 27 BILLION barrels of oil are located in the reserve according to the US geological survey.  

Shell loses; the American consumer loses.  

Sunday, April 24, 2011



A passenger screener at Philadelphia International Airport is facing charges that he distributed more than 100 images of child pornography via Facebook, records show.

Federal agents also allege that Transportation Safety Administration Officer Thomas Gordon Jr. of Philadelphia, who routinely searched airline passengers, uploaded explicit pictures of young girls to an Internet site on which he also posted a photograph of himself in his TSA uniform.

Homeland Security agents arrested the TSA officer March 24, and he is being held without bail.

Although the case was unsealed Thursday, neither the indictment nor the news release mentioned Gordon's job searching airline passengers for TSA.

HE POSTED THEM ON FACEBOOK!  TSA = Terminally Stupid Asshole!


Friday, April 22, 2011


The Debt Subject to Limit is the maximum amount of money the Government is allowed to borrow without receiving additional authority from Congress. The current statutory limit is $14.294 trillion.

We have exceeded it – and the world has not come to an end.  I say – NO MORE!  CUT SPENDING!  Force Congress to deal with this!



President Obama has touted himself as a post-racial president - did this happen under Bush?



Barack Obama issued 8 signing statements in 2009 (the first one was on 2/17/2009 - a month after being inaugurated), 6 in 2010, and 4 so far this year.

What is a Signing Statement?

A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation.  Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs.  The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional.  Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

The president's power to issue signing statements is based in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." Signing statements are considered to be one way in which the president faithfully executes the laws passed by Congress. This interpretation is supported by the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in the case of Bowsher v. Synar, which held that "... interpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of 'execution' of the law."

Purposes and effect of signing statements In 1993, the Department of Justice attempted to define the four purposes for presidential signing statements and the constitutional legitimacy of each:
A.    To simply explain what the bill will do and how it will benefit the people: No controversy here.
B.    To instruct the responsible Executive Branch agencies on how the law should be administered: This use of signing statements, says the Justice Department, is constitutional and is upheld by the Supreme Court in Bowsher v. Synar. Executive Branch officials are legally bound by the interpretations contained in presidential signing statements.
C.    To define the president's opinion of the law's constitutionality: More controversial than the first two, this use of the signing statement typically has one of at least three sub-purposes:
·         to identify certain conditions under which the president thinks all or parts of the law could be ruled unconstitutional
·         to frame the law in a manner that would "save" it from being declared unconstitutional
·         to state that the entire law, in the president's opinion, unconstitutionally usurps his authority and that he will refuse to enforce it

Through Republican and Democratic administrations, the Department of Justice has consistently advised presidents that the Constitution gives them the authority to refuse to enforce laws they believed to be clearly unconstitutional, and that expressing their intent through a signing statement is a valid exercise of their constitutional authority.

On the other hand, it has been argued that it is the president’s constitutional duty to veto and refuse to sign bills he or she believes to be unconstitutional. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson, as the nation’s first Secretary of State, advised President Washington that the veto “is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature of 1) the rights of the Executive  2) of the Judiciary  3) of the states and state legislatures.” Indeed, past presidents including Jefferson and Madison have vetoed bills on constitutional grounds, even though they supported the bills’ underlying purposes.

D.   To create a type of legislative history intended to be used by the courts in future interpretations of the law: Criticized as an attempt by the president to actually invade Congress' turf by taking an active part in the law-making process, this is clearly the most controversial of all the uses for signing statements. The president, they argue, attempts to amend legislation passed by Congress through this type of signing statement. According to the Justice Department, the legislative history signing statement originated in the Reagan Administration.

In 1986, then-Attorney General Meese entered into an arrangement with the West Publishing Company to have presidential signing statements published for the first time in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, the standard collection of legislative history. Attorney General Meese explained the purpose of his actions as follows: "To make sure that the President's own understanding of what's in a bill is the same . . . or is given consideration at the time of statutory construction later on by a court, we have now arranged with the West Publishing Company that the presidential statement on the signing of a bill will accompany the legislative history from Congress so that all can be available to the court for future construction of what that statute really means."

The Department of Justice offers views both supporting and condemning presidential signing statements through which presidents seem to take an active role in the lawmaking process:
In support: The president has a constitutional right and political duty to play a integral role in the legislative process. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the president "shall from time to time . . . recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Further, Article I, Section 7 requires that to become and actual law, a bill requires the president's signature. "If he [the president] approve it he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated."

In his widely acclaimed "The American Presidency," 110 (2d ed. 1960), author Clinton Rossiter, suggests that over time, the president has become "a sort of prime minister or 'third House of Congress.' . . . [H]e is now expected to make detailed recommendations in the form of messages and proposed bills, to watch them closely in their tortuous progress on the floor and in committee in each house, and to use every honorable means within his power to persuade . . . Congress to give him what he wanted in the first place."

Thus, suggests the Justice Department, it may be appropriate for the president, through signing statements, to explain what his (and Congress') intention was in making the law and how it will be implemented, particularly if the administration had originated the legislation or played a significant part in moving it through Congress.

On the other hand: The argument against a president using signing statements to alter Congress' intent as to meaning and enforcement of new laws is once again based in the constitution. Article I, Section 1 clearly states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Not in a Senate and House and a president. Along the long road of committee consideration, floor debate, roll call votes, conference committees, more debate and more votes, the Congress alone creates the legislative history of a bill. It can also be argued that by attempting to reinterpret or even nullify parts of a bill which he has signed, the president is exercising a type of line-item veto, a power not currently bestowed on presidents.

The recent use of presidential signing statements to functionally amend legislation passed by Congress remains controversial and is arguably not within the scope of powers granted to the president by the Constitution. The other less controversial uses of signing statements are legitimate, can be defended under the Constitution and can be useful in the long-term administration of our laws. Like any other power, however, the power of presidential signing statements can be abused.

The link below has many FAQ’s and an interactive chart where you can query a president/year for PSS’s and read the content.  It’s quite informative and well worth a bookmark.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011


What a fucking joke!  I got a virus.... called Customer Service at McAfee - yessssssss, they can get rid of the virus - will only cost you $89.95.  WTF!!! I paid for FOUR LICENSES for McAfee to PROTECT ME! Helloooooooooooo!  I'm a dumb blonde but not that FRIGGING DUMB!

Tell me why I would pay McAfee $89.95 to remove a virus that THEY LET GET BY THEM???  I don't think so, Tim!



Yeah, I woke up with a virus this morning.  The virus told me I had viruses (lol – yeah – a computer virus) and it had ‘scanned’ and I needed to buy BestAntivirus2011.  I clicked ‘cancel’ and a [.exe] file was downloaded.  Not good.  I clicked the ‘X’ to close the box – another copy of the [.exe] file was downloaded.  Mmmmm…. I clicked on the ‘X’ to close the internet window and you guessed it - yet another copy of the [.exe] file was downloaded.  I opened Windows 7 version of Explore (which I hate but that’s for another day) and erased the three files.  Then I used CTRL+ALT+DEL to get to the task manager and close the internet.  Entered the info to do a restore but only had three choices – all the rest were gone.  Picked the oldest – didn’t work.  Repeated above scenario twice (go online, get stupid alert and [.exe] files etc.  Rebooted…. By now I’m late for work…. Ran Malwarebytes update and scan….. found a couple of Trojans.  Ran FULL MCAFEE SCAN – took 2:45 – found nothing.  Went online……. Repeat performance.

Called McAfee….. I have FOUR licenses but they are older than 30 days.  So I get switched to the ‘BUY SUPPORT’ line.  I get a tech that speaks perfect Hindu.  So solly for the inconvenience.   By now my head is spinning. 

I ask him – why do I have to spend $89.95 for you to remove a virus that I got because the virus protection I bought from YOU didn’t protect me?  He says… there are new viruses coming out 24/7 and their people are making fixes 24/7 and then I get the fixes when I update.  So I say ‘Seems to me IF they had a fix for this one if would be in my update, correct?’  And he agrees.  So then I say ‘So what do I get for my $89.95 since there is obviously no fix or I would have gotten it on my update.’  He says…. ‘you will get the fix.’ 

Now I ask YOU, my friends…. What am I missing here?  By now, Habib and I are both hollerin’ and he’s saying he will send me a freebie program via email to run on my computer.  This from a man who said my PROBLEM came from downloading (albeit unknowingly) a fake virus program from an email – which I am totally positive I DID NOT DO! 

Twenty minutes into the new scan, I lose my internet – cuts off – back on – back off – back on.  I text my ISP techie (how’s THAT for service – happens when you live in the kuntry) to tell him I’m blinking again.  He replies…. He’s in the DFW airport and will come out when he gets home.  I replied ‘thanks’ – did NOT tell him that there’s a motherload of storms between DFW and RDU – assumed he has enough to think about.

Oh - and they are sending me a Customer Service questionnaire via email.  Huge mistake!  Huge!

Did I mention that I Hate Computers!!!!  

Tuesday, April 19, 2011



The President shall receive in full for his services during the term for which he shall have been elected compensation in the aggregate amount of $400,000 a year, to be paid monthly, and in addition an expense allowance of $50,000 to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties. Any unused amount of such expense allowance shall revert to the Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States Code.  No amount of such expense allowance shall be included in the gross income of the President.  He shall be entitled also to the use of the furniture and other effects belonging to the United States and kept in the Executive Residence at the White House.

The first couple had an ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME for 2010 of $1.7  MILLION.  This came ‘mostly from the books he’s written’ according to his just filed income tax return.

Now…. On Amazon, ‘Dreams of My Father’ is $17.77 new or $8.77 used (ewwwww).  His other book, ‘The Audacity of Hope’, goes for $7.99 new in paperback, and used from $0.01.

$1,700,000 - $400,000 = $1,300,000  ‘mostly from book sales’.  If you say the books AVERAGE $10.00 each (which they do not) – that’s 130,000 books in 2010  (+/-)

This begs the question….Who’s buying the books!


45% of households pay no income tax; 42% say the tax level is ‘about right’ – I reckon to hell they DO!


The ATC Union negotiated for 4-day workweeks, which means the ATC’s work FOUR – 10 HOUR DAYS/NIGHTS.  Because you cannot divide a 24-hour day into three 10-hour parts, shifts (a/k/a/ SWING shifts) do NOT start at the same time each day.  A single controller who works on Monday from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. would start his next shift 20 hours later.  He would report for work on Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. and work until midnight.  His third rotation would begin at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night and run until 6:00 a.m. on Thursday.  How on the hell would you EVER get on any sort of routine sleep schedule?  They are not burning the candle at both ends – their bodies are NOT designed to work like that, unless you are a soldier in a foxhole, and they sleep when they can (much like the ATC).  But the union got ‘em a three (almost) day weekend.  Whoopee. 

ATC SHIFT WORK:  Shift work consists of Day shifts (that vary between 6am and 5pm), Night shifts (that vary between 12pm and 11pm), and Midnight shifts (that vary between 10pm and 8am).  Each shift lasts a minimum of 8 hours and cannot last longer than 10 hours.  The most common shift work schedule consists of working two night shifts, two day shifts, and one midnight shift each week.  The shift variations at Terminal facilities are many.  Breaks during shift vary between 15 minutes and 45 minutes.  Lunch breaks are the longest and everyone gets just one.  You will not be allowed to leave the facility for lunch without taking annual leave.  Some facilities have cafeterias and most do not.  Controllers take turns going on break.  Supervisors set the length of breaks based on staffing for that day.  The more people there are to work the longer the break and the more frequent they become.  The fewer there are to work the shorter the break and the less frequent they become. The FAA has required that supervisors avoid allowing controllers to work more than two consistent hours on a position without a break.  Sometimes it is possible to relieve a controller before they work two consistent hours and sometimes it is not.  

I would think that, in a job this stressful, regular hours - repeating shifts - would be far better for the body.  I'm actually amazed that these people can sit for hours in a darkened room and stare at a monitor with moving dots, and not fall asleep more often.  I don't think the ATC union did them, or the American flying public, any favors.

Sunday, April 17, 2011


Be sure to read 'BLOGGER BUZZ' if you have a legacy account - they are gonna be no more after June!  Spread the word...

An important note about legacy accounts

April 15, 2011 — permalink

Posted by Brett Wiltshire, Product Operations

There was a time early on in Blogger’s life where we had our own, custom account system for handling login authentication. Starting in 2006 all new Blogger accounts were created using the official Google accounts system, and then in 2007 we started the process of moving all of our legacy users over to the Google accounts system. Now, four years later, we’re finally at the home stretch of the transition. For a number of technical and operational reasons, we’ve decided to finally end our support for all legacy accounts and blogs after June 25th, 2011. So if you have a Blogger account and haven’t logged in since 2007, you will lose access to the account and associated content permanently unless you update to the Google Account system before June 25th.

Updating to the new account system is easy and should take just a few minutes. We really do value all of the content that has been created on Blogger and we hope that as many people as possible will reclaim their blogs. If you’ve been avoiding this task for a while, we encourage you to head over to the Legacy migration page and update your account.

We’ll be sending a similar notice later this week via email to all of the email addresses associated with the legacy accounts we have in our database. In a few weeks we’ll also make another announcement here on Buzz, with more specific updates on the transition.

If you have any other questions about this process, please let us know by posting your issue in the Login section of our Help Forum.


I have a neighbor who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1996.  He was referred to an oncologist in Chapel Hill at UNC Memorial Hospital, where he told he had maybe 3-4 years max to live.  Because his cancer was so advanced, he was offered a chance to take part in a clinical trial for a new cancer med.  He accepted.  He continued to get worse.  Then the trial was suddenly halted because of some data-altering error.  The trial participants’ records were opened and he found out he was getting the placebo medication.  All the participants were given the option to begin taking the new medication and after much counseling and prayer, he opted to take it. 

He was 70 this weekend.  The cancer was arrested dead in its tracks and he has continued to take the trial med, along with a hormone therapy for 15 years.  His oncologist has repeatedly told him – one day this will just stop working.  But the idea was to buy TIME – time for new research and NEW meds to be developed.  I have no idea the status of his med – whether the FDA has approved it, whether it is still being tested.  But I do know that it takes YEARS for medications to become available to the public.

If you have ever read the insert for any medication, Rx or OTC, there is always the possibility for adverse reactions, or worse.  This is primarily to protect the manufacturer from lawsuits, which happen anyway, regardless of what the insert warns.  If it is found that people DIE from a medication, it is usually pulled off the market.  If three poor souls in 100,000 die, it is pulled off the market.  There is no way to know how many people that the med would HELP – only that three people died taking it.

I think ‘trial’ medications, and medications that have proven to be effective but that CAN have dire consequences should be made available to patients with the caveat that the patient be totally aware of the dangers and risks involved, is counseled by his medical provider, and signs a legal document stating that he knows and accepts these risks. 

My neighbor is alive and well today because he was given that opportunity in a controlled environment.  Perhaps there IS a system in place now that permits desperate measures for desperate people – there SHOULD be.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In a related vein, Thomas Sowell said… [Delays in approving new medications by a government that ALSO provides all the health care]... “lowers the cost of medications-- if you count costs solely in money terms, rather than in terms of how many people literally pay with their lives when the bureaucrats are reluctant to buy new pharmaceutical drugs, while they can continue to approve obsolete and cheaper drugs for the same illnesses.”

This is an aspect of socialized medicine I’ve not heard debated, but it WOULD be a cost benefit to the government.  It will also be the beginning of the end of the best health care system in the world.


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. …  Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that “the buck stops here.”  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.  Americans deserve better."

Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D, IL) 3/20/2006

P.S.  At the time, Senator Obama was urging Congress not to tolerate an increase that would bring the debt ceiling to $9 trillion.


If this is typical of Obama’s appointments, we are in deep dookie

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, commenting on the questioning, said: “The Obama administration official had to admit that they don’t even measure how many jobs their new regulations kill,” ….. “They don’t know. They don’t measure it. They obviously don’t care.”

Saturday, April 16, 2011


The politically correct (now THAT is funny!) French ignored the increasing Islam population in their cities........ and now, they are losing their cities! And it WILL happen here - these people are patiently achieving their goal of world domination. Wake UP, kiddies!

H/T to Ebyjo.....


Posted by Van Helsing at RIGHTWINGNEWS.COM

If their wanton destruction of the quality of education and their willingness to bankrupt state governments out of pathological greed aren't enough to convince you of the profound malignancy of teachers unions, maybe this will do the job:

Between negotiating for more benefits and teaching their students, the California Federation of Teachers has adopted a resolution of support for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

At the CFT's 2011 Convention in late March, the delegates passed 30 resolutions, from solidifying support for anti-bullying [usually a euphemism for homosexuality promotion] legislation to supporting transitional kindergarten.  Among the resolutions largely pertaining to education and collective bargaining rights was Resolution 19 — to "Reaffirm support for death row journalist."

"Therefore, be it resolved, that the California Federation of Teachers reaffirm its support and demand that the courts consider the evidence of innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal," the Committee Report reads.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was a former member of the Black Panthers who was found guilty of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel J.  Faulkner during a routine traffic stop in 1981. Abu-Jamal was subsequently sentenced to death.

Appallingly, he is still alive 30 years later, recording college commencement speeches from his cell.  NPR wanted him to contribute to "All Things Considered," but Bob Dole squashed that.

No serious person contests Abu-Jamal's guilt. As author Daniel Flynn reminds us,

"You have numerous eyewitnesses saying Mumia did it.  You had ballistic evidence Mumia's gun at the scene was consistent with the bullet used to kill Faulkner. Mumia admitted after the fact that he did it."

However, the question isn't whether he did it, but whether it should be a crime for a left-wing black guy to shoot a white cop in the back. After all, Barack Hussein Obama has been shooting our whole country in the back, and no one talks about putting him in jail.

Thursday, April 14, 2011



THE WALL STREET JOURNAL nails Obama on speech yesterday!

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.




Here’s a little idea you might want to think about in this day of voter fraud.

Go to your City/County Clerk/Registrar’s office and request a list of all registered voters.  Ask when is the deadline for a voter challenge.  You have to have personal knowledge that a voter is not eligible to vote.  (You can’t challenge a voter because of his nationality or suspected status as a non-citizen.)

Send EACH REGISTERED VOTER a FIRST CLASS LETTER, clearly addressed and with a return address.  All the letter has to say is something like ‘Dear Voter – the next election is on November 6th – don’t forget to vote!’ 

All first class mail has to be delivered.  On the envelope, put this:  RETURN REQUESTED IF UNDELIVERABLE

Any envelops that are returned to you for whatever reason are your ‘proof’ to challenge a registered voter.  Reasons may be:

  •          Moved, left no forwarding address
  •          Deceased
  •          No such address
Carry the unopened envelopes back to the City/County Clerk/Registrar’s office, along with your original list with the challenges marked, and place a challenge on that voter’s name.

Any challenge prior to the day of election must be submitted in writing to the
City/County Clerk/Registrar, explaining the grounds on which the challenge is based.

The challenge must usually be signed by the person making the challenge.

Upon receipt of the written challenge, the City/County Clerk/Registrar is required to immediately notify the person challenged. 

The Clerk shall investigate and rule upon the challenge as soon as possible.  If the person fails to remove the challenge, then that name is removed from the voting rolls.  

Get organized – do it by precinct – all you will be out will be some time, paper, envelopes and stamps.

One word of caution – if there IS a concerted effort at voter fraud, those behind it will be more than displeased with you.

While this process can be done by an individual, it really should come from the party offices – the precinct chair should already have all this information and they MAY be doing this with their mailings already.

And volunteer to be a poll watcher!

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Private business CREATES wealth; government CONSUMES wealth.... questions?

enough said........ time to clean your weapons


Saudi Arabia announced today that they are going to cut back on oil production.  Look for even higher gasoline prices as a result.  Everything transported by truck will increase in price.  Obama still will not permit Americas to drill for the trillions of barrels of oil beneath our lands.

This president calls for tax increases – INCLUDING A TAX TRIGGER!!!  This means, when the spending exceeds revenues by a fixed percent, THERE WILL BE AN AUTOMATIC TAX INCREASE TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE – and CONGRESS WILL NOT HAVE TO VOTE ON IT!  Memories of Congress tying their pay increases to the military so they would not have to vote on their own pay raises!  As Congressman Ryan says – today’s speech was a broadside to America by the Campaigner-in-Chief, who has again voted ‘present’.

Either of the above events is an economy/jobs killer.  Together we have the intentional death of this nation by a shameless, ignorant Marxist community organizer.


This country is heading down the toilet because of a TOTALLY BIASED press corps that does NOT report the news.  This didn’t start out to be humorous, but it ended that way.

Definition of JOURNALISM  ( )

a: the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b: the public press
c: an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
Four times as many “media professionals” told the pollsters they considered themselves “liberal” (25%) than called themselves “conservative” (6%).  Among the general public, self-identified conservatives outnumbered liberals, 38 percent to 21 percent.


Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization.  According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.”  Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported.  More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

Preparing for a panel discussion on the media, the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands commissioned a poll of 673 journalists, including 424 from newspapers, 48 from broadcast and cable networks, 47 from top-50-market local television stations, 45 from Web sites, 41 from other television stations, 26 from national radio networks, 18 from wire services, 14 from top-50-market local radio stations and 10 from magazines. The surveys were conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates between March 7 and May 2, 2005, with the results released on May 24, 2005.  The poll asked questions on journalistic ethics and about journalists’ views on issues and overall ideology.

Nearly all journalists (95%) rated “the ethical practices of journalists” as either “very good” (32%) or “somewhat good.”  A majority of the same group (56%) found the “ethical practices of politicians” either “somewhat bad” or “very bad.”

Most journalists also said they thought “news organizations get the facts straight” (86%) and that “most news organizations quickly report” any mistakes (74%), compared to just three percent who saw a propensity to “try to cover up” mistakes.

Only 10 percent of reporters thought a major reason for CBS’s use of forged memos in the infamous National Guard story was because “CBS News and Dan Rather are liberals who dislike President Bush,” with most (54%) saying that was “not a reason at all.”  Most of the journalists (76%) said they thought the story ran because “CBS News and Dan Rather believed the story was accurate and provided new information about the controversy surrounding Bush’s service in the National Guard.”

A total of 31 percent described themselves as “very liberal” or “liberal” compared to just nine percent who identified themselves as “very conservative” or “conservative,” with 49 percent maintaining they are “moderate.”

More than half of the journalists (57%) said they attend worship services only “a few times a year” (34%) or “never” (23%), compared to 27 percent who said they attend either “every week” (17%) or “almost every week” (10%).

Nearly three in five journalists (59%) favored laws allowing “two men or two women to marry each other.”  Among the general public, only 28 percent favored so-called same-sex marriage.


“There is a liberal bias.  It’s demonstrable.  You look at some statistics.  About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.  There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....  But I stopped watching it some time ago.  The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.  I still check in, but less and less frequently.  I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

“A lot of my personal worldview is unmistakably sympathetic to things in a liberal playbook, but honest to God, I have been called a reactionary by some on the far left, a liberal by some on the far right and I’m insulted by both terms.  My point of view is about delivering information and context.  It has nothing to do with a political point of view.”
— MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, as quoted in a June 9, 2005 Houston Chronicle profile by Mike McDaniel.

“He [Dan Rather] should be remembered as the complete reporter, a person who should be remembered for the hundreds and thousands of broadcasts he did....  If we wish to be fair-minded rather than mean-spirited, we should not be fixated on the one story that went bad.”
— Former CBS News reporter Marvin Kalb, now at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, as quoted in the March 8, 2005 Boston Globe.

“I’m not political.  I don’t vote....  I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, formerly with ESPN, in an Online Journalism Review interview posted November 30, 2004.



An Indonesian lawmaker took multitasking to a new level during a parliamentary session Friday.

Unfortunately for Arifinto (who goes by one name), a photographer caught him watching porn on a tablet computer while his colleagues debated controversial plans to build a new parliament building.

Arifinto is a member of the conservative Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), Indonesia's largest Islamic party. "As a pioneer in my party, I am drawn to take responsibility for the sake of the continuity and good image of my party," he said Monday in a press conference that announced his resignation.

The photographer managed to zoom and capture several shots of Arifinto, who held his tablet underneath the table, over a time span of two and a half minutes. Arifinto initially claimed that he accidentally opened a porn website, but the photos proved that he had at least six folders containing pornographic content open on his screen.

Backed by his party, Arifinto pushed hard for Indonesia's 2008 anti porn bill--a controversial bill that states downloading pornographic content faces a maximum of four years in prison and $232,000 in fines. In January, the PKS Party threatened to ban Blackberry in the country and forced them to filter porn on their Indonesian smartphones.

Though he's certainly embarrassed himself (and potentially his party), it's unclear whether Arifinto will serve prison time.  A list of sanctions imposed late Sunday night by his party's Sharia Council ordered him to recite the Koran, give alms to 60 poor people, ask Council leaders for religious advice, and ask for God's mercy 100 times in the next 40 days.  Despite losing his job, it seems he's going to have his hands full; hopefully he'll be able to stay away from porn for the time being.

Monday, April 11, 2011


Federal gasoline tax: 18.4 cents per gallon

The official statistics according to the EIA (Energy Information Administration) are that the US 388.6 million gallons/day

388,600,000 X $0.184 = $71,502,400.00 a DAY in gasoline taxes (that's over $72 MILLION A DAY, KIDDIES!)

Gas was $1.80 a gallon on January 20, 2009 - the day Obama was inaugurated.

Gas TAXES by states:

Gas PRICES by states:

Sunday, April 10, 2011


“In Federalist Number 78, Alexander Hamilton declared that ‘the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power’ established by the Constitution.  The school of thought was the justices must be guided by their interpretation of the language of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and this was the case for nearly a century.  Books can be (and have been) written about how far the courts have strayed from the ‘intent of the framers’ of the Constitution.

There have been a total of 112 justices in the Supreme Court SINCE THE COURT FIRST CONVENED IN FEBRUARY, 1790.  Of those, 17 have been Chief Justices, and 95 have been Associate Justices.  During each session, the high court will consider and rule on 60-75 oral arguments and 80-100 non-oral cases.

APPOINTMENTS ARE FOR LIFE.  THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF YEARS A JUSTICE SERVES IS 16 YEARS.  The longest serving Chief Justice was Chief Justice John Marshall who served for 34 years, 5 months and 11 days from 1801 to 1835.  The shortest serving Chief Justice was John Rutledge who was appointed under a temporary commission because the Senate was in recess. He served for 5 months and 14 days before the Senate reconvened and rejected his nomination.  The longest serving Justice was William O. Douglas who served for 36 years, 7 months, and 8 days from 1939 to 1975. 

For all that Barack Obama has done to ‘change’ the United States of America, the vast majority of it can be undone down the road.  SCOTUS , on the other hand, is the final authority on legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.  Their decisions are based on how they ‘see’ the Constitution and their decisions can and do have an impact on this nation for years and years.


       JUSTICE                              APP’T BY            YEAR BORN

Scalia, Antonin (C)                   Reagan                 1936* 
Thomas, Clarence (C)               Bush, G.H.W.          1948
Kennedy, Anthony M. (S)          Bush, G. H. W.        1936*        
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (L)          Clinton                 1933*
Breyer, Stephen G.  (L)            Clinton                  1938*
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. (C)            Bush, G. W.            1950
Sotomayor, Sonia  (L)               Obama                 1954 
Kagan, Elena (L)                      Obama                  1960 

Roberts, John G., Jr. (C)           Bush, G. W.           1955  Current Chief Justice

C = Conservative
L = Liberal
S = Swing