This gives me an itchy, uncomfortable feeling

NOTE: This will be my last post on Blogspot. It's been a fun ride, but I figure it's time to let it go. All the recent posts are mirrored on my new site, so please visit it. www.thelibertyzone.com Comments will be turned off here, but feel free to comment on the new site.

************************************************************************************
Maybe it's my naturally suspicious nature, but the idea of a Sharia compliant Master Card gives me an uncomfortable feeling. On its face, it seems like little more than a debit/ATM card that is accepted anywhere major credit cards are.

The EonCap Islamic Debit MasterCard is basically a debit card with ATM functions as well. It also works on PayPass systems, which enables a person to swipe it on a terminal without the card leaving the cardholder's hand. It is referred to as blending traditional purchasing power with modern technology and is Shari'ah compliant.

Well, what the hell does that mean? Does it assure no Jews are involved in the banking transactions? Does 2 percent of every transaction go to purchase weapons for Hezbollah? Will the card automatically explode in your hand if you try to purchase pork, alcohol, hookers or a dildo? What, exactly, is the difference between a Sharia compliant debit card and one that isn't?
I know Muslims supposedly aren't allowed to pay interest on loans, which, to me, is monumentally stupid. If you don't have enough money for a purchase, don't make the purchase. If you decide that you want to make the purchase despite the fact that you don't have money for it, you may borrow it from anyone who is willing to lend it to you. But that money belongs to the lender. Let me say that again - THAT MONEY BELONGS TO THE LENDER!! That means it doesn't belong to you. It also means that the lender is doing you a favor by providing you the resources to purchase something that you would otherwise not have been able to purchase. It also means that they have every right to charge you for it. Muslims seem to think that their faith somehow entitles them to a free lunch. But hey - if there are banks willing to give them interest-free loans, more power to them! They're not MY banks! I don't care. My question is this: a debit card only allows you to withdraw as much as you have in your bank account. No more, no less. That's the nature of a debit card. So, there's no loan, and there's no interest rate. So what's the difference between a regular debit card and one that is compliant with Muslim law?

Someone enlighten me please!

Here's why I get this itchy, uncomfortable feeling. Electronic financial transactions have this tendency to be easy and convenient for threat financing. It is estimated that only $10,000 was needed to carry out the attacks on US embassies abroad.

Take for example eBay and PayPal.Terrorist could establish accounts, fictitiously sell merchandise on eBay and transfer small amounts of money, less than $3,000, via PayPal.These transactions spread across three or four accounts would be enough to fund another embassy-scale terrorist attack.This non-traditional means of transferring money is the most difficult to detect, monitor and trace.

And if confronted by law enforcement authorities about possible suspicious activities within their banks, are these "Sharia compliant" banks going to hide behind religious freedoms to withold information about possible threat financing?

Are we getting the picture here?

Is anyone else getting a prickly feeling in their shorts from this?

Sure fire way to piss me off

So I'm sure I've talked about this before, but I'm going to again, because it's funny.  Brad's eating habits.  They're revolting, but like a monkey on crack, I can't help but fixate on him in morbid fascination every time he buys a McDonald's hamburger with nothing on it but a tiny, thin, gross, greasy patty, takes off the top of the bun, covers the burger in greasy french fries, puts the top of the bun back on and eats it.  It's disgusting, but fascinating.  For a 41 year old man, who eats nothing but Cheetos, cheese balls, burnt meat that looks and tastes like shoe leather and McDonalds, Brad is remarkably healthy.  He can run faster than most people I know (although he hates running), he has low cholesterol, he's incredibly strong, and yes... he's even won a wrestling match with me (or several). 

So what's the quickest way to piss Brad off at McDonald's?  Order something sanctimoniously healthy at a chain that is known for its foul, greasy fare, complain to the minimum-wage earner behind the counter that you don't have enough dressing for your salad, and then get all huffy when the person who is just trying to eke out a living and has nothing to do with setting McDonalds' prices, says you have to pay 27 cents extra for extra dressing.

When Ms. Healthy's plastic bad-for-the-environment bag of salad was given to her, she opened it and with a scowl on her face, informed the employee that there was only one package of salad dressing in the bag and she needed two more. (So much for that salad remaining healthy) The employee, following years of training and wanting to keep her job, told the woman politely that extra packages of dressing are 27 cents each.

Lets think about this logically for a moment. My McDonalds has not raised its prices as everybody else has during the gas hike. As a matter of fact, you can still get a large Sweet Tea for only $1! So if they want to charge 27 cents for people who want extra dressing, I can live with that. It's called free market, supply and demand.

And what was the reply from Ms. Healthy? A stunned look, a scowl, and a huffing walk away. As she walked past me, she actually said "That bitch wants to charge me 27 cents?! Who does she think she is?!"

I know my Bradley better than most.  There are very few quicker ways to make him angry.  I'm surprised he didn't go over to the self-righteous bitch, pull her innards out through her nose and plop them onto her McDonald's tray!

My buddy Rachel Lucas also posts about things that piss her off on occasion.  She does it with such flare and style, so as to make me spew whatever I happen to be drinking at the time onto my computer screen.  Note to self:  DO NOT READ RACHEL'S BLOG AT WORK!!

Well, you guys know what pisses me off:  gun-grabbing lunatics, socialists, racists, fundamentalists, morons, authoritarians, tyrants, ignorance and statists, just to name a few. 

But that's politics... You know what pisses me off in real life?  Leaving work early, only to be stuck in traffic on I-66, because some asshat decided to slow down or break down on one of the most crowded highways in the United States?  Worse yet, whoever designed the interchange at Gainesville must have been smoking a REALLY BIG BONG!  The far left lane is HOV.  For those who don't know what that is, it's a morally repugnant idea fomented by enviro-nazis where the left lane of one of the busiest highways in the country is reserved for hybrid cars and vehicles with more than one person in them.

Now, here's an aside about HOV:  It's a crappy idea.  It's repulsive and unjust.  It's meant to encourage people to consolidate their vehicle time, so that we don't pollute or some such.  Here's my take:  my taxes pay for highways and roads just like others'.  Hell, I probably pay more than many, because by the socialists' standards, I'm rich.  Hey, whatever... But my money pays for these damn roads, and I WANT FULL USE OF THEM!  No, I don't have another person in my car.  A: I hate other people, and aside from Brad, there is no one I would want in my vehicle at 0500 hrs.  B:  Even if I wasn't a misanthropic bitch, there aren't many psychotic asshats in the world who would make a 90 mile commute to a job they loved at 0500, so that their kids could live in a nice neighborhood, attend schools where they receive a modicum of individual attention and remain in a small community with numerous friends.  OK?  It's my choice to drive 180 miles EACH day to and from work.  I spend enough on gas to choke a rhino.  Why, pray tell, do I also have to be barred from using the friggin' left lane on I-66 so I could pass the idiots who actually drive the speed limit?

OK, back to my point.  The left lane is HOV.  That lane ends at the Gainesville exit.  At the same time the far right lane ends as well.  That's right.  One of the nation's busiest highways goes from four lanes to two at that particular exit.  You can imagine how pleasant that is at rush hour!

Now, aside from HOV restrictions, here's what I hate:  believe it or not, I actually abide by the restrictions.  I have no desire to be ass raped by the Old Dominion if some overzealous state cop stops me for being the only one in my vehicle in the HOV lane.  So I suffer, along with thousands of other misanthropes who refuse to rideshare.  That's fine.  I deal.  What really pisses me off is the asshats who decide they're too good to abide by the restrictions, who drive their SUVs in the HOV all alone, pass all of us slugs who are sitting in the bottleneck, and then try to shove their fat asses in front of me when the HOV lane ends.  They violate the regs just so they can butt in front of the rest of us and cause me to slam on my brakes so they can sneak in front of me when the lane ends.

I'm one of those obnoxious drivers who will not let these assclowns in.  Period.  I will intentionally speed up and ride the tail of the vehicle in front of me so closely, that the driver of that car should ask me to buy them dinner first.  I'm a bitch.  I want the assholes in the HOV lane who feel they're too special to drive in the regular lanes just like the rest of us to stop and wait until someone lets them in.  And let me tell you something... DC area drivers - not a whole lot of them are nice enough to let these shitslurpers in front of them. 

I may hate HOV restrictions with the fire of a thousand burning oil fields in Kuwait, but I hate the assholes who consider themselves too special to abide by the regs even more. 

There.  That's my pet peeve for the day.

It's about choices

My friend Defiant Infidel sent me an email this afternoon telling me that I have to read this.

Now let me preface this by saying that my children are not home schooled. I do not have the time, the patience or the pre-requisite knowledge about science and math to make them well-rounded human beings. Yes, I work in economics, but my trigonometry and calculus skills leave much to be desired. And science... well... let me just say this - I know that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. I know that di-hydrogen monoxide is H2O, commonly known as water. I know basic biology and basic physics. Beyond that, don't ask me anything scientific, because I will look at you like a monkey doing a math problem.

As you all know, I've had my issues with public schools, but I've always been a big believer in actually giving a damn about what goes on in your child's educational career and following closely what they're taught and why. I don't home school, but I damn well make sure that what my children are learning is accurate and objective - NOT based on someone's ignorant perception of whatever politics dictates at the moment. This is why the Redhead corrected his teacher by telling her that we don't live in a Democracy, but in a bicameral, constitutional republic. This is why my Teeny-bopper can read and comprehend college-level novels, while everyone else around her muddles through teen fiction.

I don't supplement their education because I'm conceited enough to believe that I'm smarter than the teachers. I'm merely realistic enough to understand that with today's "shove as much information they might get on a standardized test down their throat" environment, schools are hardly adequate to produce a well-rounded, well-educated child.

So with that... some fiskage.

I do understand a parent embracing the homeschooling philosophy for several reasons. Control of curriculum and topics, friends, diet, convenience and school shootings to name only a few.

I don't know any parent that home schools their children because they want to "control their friends." As a parent, I do make sure that I know my children's playmates' parents and that when they go play, it's an appropriate environment, not a slovenly pigsty where you're afraid to sit down for contracting a staph infection and the smell is so rank, you vomit in your mouth every time you inhale.

Contrary to popular opinion, school shootings are actually a rare occurrence and have been on the decline for quite a few years. If I had decided to home school my kids, school shootings wouldn't be on my list of reasons to pull my children out of public schools.

Convenience?? Being cooped up in the house, not having a career of your own, and spending every day educating the munchkins instead of having any semblance of a life? That's convenience? Don't get me wrong. I love my kids to pieces, but if I had to spend 24/7 with them without having the incredibly cool career that I have, I would lose my mind! Parents who home school sacrifice a metric f*ckload to ensure that their children aren't completely doofused up by publik edjukashun! I applaud and honor their commitment and sacrifice! Convenience? I don't think so!

The issue is the controlling aspect of what children are taught and the arrogant nature in which a parent deems their curriculum better or of a higher standard. While public schools are struggling, for the most part I think education today is better than it has ever been.

Oh? Our children are taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, that we live in a democracy, that there's no difference between "your," "you're," "their," "they're," "to," "two," and "too." As John Stossel points out:

To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey.

Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them "stupid."

[...]

The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

I came here from the former USSR as a child of eight. I attended first and second grades in the Ukraine. In those two years, I studied a foreign language (French), could write compositions in cursive and did algebra. When I came to the United States, I came to third grade. We were cutting out shapes from construction paper and learning how to tell time by looking at little drawings of clocks. I didn't start learning a foreign language until seventh grade! In other words, education today and yesterday sucks dog schlong!

Yet, we continue to complain about American competitiveness on a global scale. Breeding little compete-mongering children is not a good formula for society. It creates a mean kid atmosphere and quite frankly kids should spend more time in the "being nice" classroom and less time in the academic classroom.

Wrong answer! Whether we like it or not, globalization is a fact. Technology has connected this world like it never has before. Industry is global. It's more competitive. And our dumb kids, who barely know what goes on in their own nation, let alone what goes on in other countries, who don't care to know, who can barely speak their own language, let alone any foreign one, will not be able to compete for work or innovation. Competition breeds achievement, and achievement breeds new discoveries, developments in technology, medicine, art and science. Without competition we stagnate. It doesn't preclude "niceness." It augments it.

At any rate, home schooled children are taught a strict philosophical view that is controlled by the parent.

Why is that a bad thing? Taking responsibility for your children's education and their worldview is somehow negative? And what is it, exactly, that makes you believe that children who are home schooled aren't exposed to a variety of views? Isn't it a bit of an ignorant generalization to claim that all parents who choose to educate their children at home are narrow-minded?

Also, home schooling parents act superior to the public school system, and I think a community should support its local schools.

The community does support its local schools - through the taxes that are extorted from every individual, whether they have children in public schools or not. And why shouldn't home schooling parents feel superior to public schools? Fact of the matter is that public schools are failing. Much like lack of competition breeds complacency and stunts progress, lack of competition in public schools, due to the fact that they're a monopoly breeds a lack incentive to succeed. And it's NOT a lack of funding that's the problem. According to Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, "At the end of World War II, public schools in the United States spent a
total of $1,214 per student in inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars. By the
middle of the 1950s that figure had roughly doubled to $2,345. By 1972
it had almost doubled again, reaching $4,479. And since then, it has
doubled a third time, climbing to $8,745 in 2002." Obviously throwing money at the problem is not working.

I don't think that the social aspect is too much of a problem, but I do think I would feel isolated as a kid from the camaraderie of school spirit and school pride. Its a huge part of childhood that home school kids miss out on. Nothing better than a pep rally before a sporting event.

I don't know about other places, but our school sporting events are open to EVERYONE in the community. Additionally, the county Parks and Rec Department has football, baseball, cheerleading and other sports county residents can participate in. Don't assume that just because a parent chooses to educate their children at home, that they isolate them socially. Home schooled children still have friends and participate in sports and other activities.

So what is the purpose of home schooling? Is it so parents can micromanage what goes into the impressionable minds of their kids? If so that philosophy stinks. What is it they think about the outside world? Are they better? Is the world so evil that the education that comes from a secular institution is sub-par?

The purpose of home schooling is to give children a better education. Better by whose standards? Just take a look at the performance of home schooled kids vice ones who are shuffled through publik skools nowadays. My 18 year old decided she was going to skip school the entire fourth quarter. She just didn't go. She failed nearly EVERYTHING. Straight Fs. Except for one D- in English. And because the only requirement for her to graduate high school was to pass four years of English, the D- did it. She's practically illiterate. She couldn't have done worse on her SATs if she had written her name down and left the test. And yet, the school shuffled her out. Tell me again how great public schools are? It's not that they're secular. I'm a Pagan-leaning agnostic. I want my kids taught facts and science, not faith and creationism. If I want them to have a spiritual education, I certainly won't leave it to public schools.

Why home school? It's about choices. Maybe I don't want my children learning that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all states or that Lincoln was such a hero for setting all the slaves in America free, when in fact, there were two, and they only freed slaves in particular states - the Confederate ones. Maybe I don't want my kids learning that the Second Amendment gives a collective right to keep and bear arms. Maybe I want my children to know the difference between a democracy and a republic and which one the Founders intended this nation to be. I want them to know the difference between "to" and "two."

Self righteous? I wouldn't call it that. I would call it loving one's kids and caring about what they're taught. As a parent you care about what they put in their bodies and what they eat. Why wouldn't you care about what goes into their minds?

Well, I think I'm ready

I've been monkeying around with the new site for several days now, and while it's not completely finished to my satisfaciton yet, it's acceptable.

If you're a current reader, I urge you to bookmark my new site: www.thelibertyzone.com and start reading there instead.

I think I'll mirror blog posts here at Blogspot until the end of the week, and then bid this platform farewell!

So once again, don't forget:

www.thelibertyzone.com

Hasn't prior restraint been ruled unconstitutional or something?

I received this story in an email yesterday, but it included a link to one of my LEAST favorite sites, WorldNetDaily, that is a rag so biased, that what they print can barely be considered journalism. I generally take everything I read in the Weekly World News of the Internet, as I like to refer to them, with a grain of salt until I find a similar story in a more credible news source. The fact that I am actually linking to a CNN story in the title of this post should tell you how low my opinion of World(Fundamentalist)NutDaily is.

Nonetheless... this particular story appears to be accurate.

Some Connecticut gun enthusiasts are up in arms about a new law signed this week by Gov. John Rowland that gives police the right to seize firearms from the home of a person whom authorities believe may be considering a criminal act.

It's considered to be the first law in the nation that allows confiscation of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence.

I realize prior restraint has been ruled unconstitutional in Near v. Minnesota in 1931. The case itself pertained to prior restraint of the press, when the Supreme Court ruled that the state had no power or authority to prevent a publication from publishing a story, except in extreme cases when national security is at stake. Subsequent cases also dealt with First Amendment issues.

I would think, however, that a constitutionally enumerated and protected right, would also be protected under these decisions. I would think that allowing a government to violate the Second Amendment rights of an individual who has committed no crime would be illegal, much like it's illegal to violate the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations, merely because they might abuse it.

Gun control nutbags have often quoted what they perceive to be limitations on the First Amendment as justification for limiting the Second. "You can't yell 'FIRE!'in a crowded theater," they claim. Well, actually, you can -- if there is a fire. And much like state legislators do not mandate theater managers to duct tape patrons' mouths shut, just in case they might incite panic and yell, "FIRE!" illegally, they also have no right to mandate the confiscation of a gun, just in case an individual may use it in a crime.

So why is it that Connecticut is allowing this clearly unconstitutional law to stand? Panic.

Connecticut passed the law after the shootings deaths of four people at the state's lottery headquarters last year by one employee whose behavior had worried co-workers.

"It gives police the authority when it's clear that someone's become dangerous -- and you know they have guns -- to go in and take the guns before a tragedy takes place," said Rep. Michael Lawler.

One batshiat crazy nutjob acted weird and went on a rampage, and ergo, they feel justified in treating everyone like a potential criminal.

When is it clear that someone has become dangerous? My idea of worrisome behavior may be quite different from the paranoid loon who sits in the cubicle next to me and soils his tidy-whities every time I snap my gum too loudly.

Are the police to act like psychologists now, without actually having the training?

Since when is it right or moral to allow the subjective views of others to affect people's rights?

What prevents vindictive ex spouses, paranoid neighbors, or former friends with whom one has gotten into what one thought was merely an argument from turning one in on the suspicion of "dangerous" behavior?

Look, I don't want dangerous, violent nutjobs walking around armed any more than anyone else does. However, this law makes the average citizen's rights subject to other people's arbitrary whims and irrational fears, potentially disarming the populace and rendering them vulnerable against the very nutbags from whom the state claims protection is needed. Fact of the matter is crazy is crazy (deep, I know), and a violent nutjob will just as soon kill you with a kitchen utensil as he would with a gun, and the former would probably hurt more!

For those "journalistic" types who want to use prior restraint on gun owners, I'd like to see how loudly you howl if your computer was confiscated, just in case you engage in libel.

Who's the racist?

So I was sitting around after work tonight, trying to figure out what I was going to write about. There are times when nothing appeals to me. I'm not as creatively fabulous as my friend Rachel, who can write about the lint between her toes and make it sound interesting in the absence of anything to write about! And yes, I would read about the lint over and over and over again, just because she's got the flair!

So I was talking to Brad on the phone. He's tired. He just got home from work. He's cranky (and yes, that's a normal state of mind for him.) But he asked me if I'd seen the terminally cluef*cked moonbat who appeared on MSNBC recently, claiming that McCain's attack ad on Obama is somehow racist... RACIST!!! Showing a black politician sandwiched between two vapid bimbos who happen to be white is racist??? Most frat boys would call it "fortuitous."

And showing a monument in an ad that happens to hold a certain shape... ahem... is well... yeah. The ignorant douchenozzle in question actually claimed that the phallic symbols depicted in the ad, combined with the juxtaposition of a black politician with two white vacuous bimbos is... um... racist.

Some people just want to see race everywhere.



OK, first of all, it's an attack on Obama's intelligence. Obama isn't the brightest candle on the menorah, but he's far above the barely cerebrally functioning Britney Spears and Paris Hilton!

Of course, I can tell that the retardoid hurling the racism accusation also can't tell the difference between the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Washington Monument and the Victory Column.

And the always entertaining, always observant Jon Stewart calls him on it.



Just for the record...

Washington Monument






























Leaning Tower of Pisa



Victory Column



Alles Klar?

Apparently, to some nimrods, portraying any African American in any negative light is... well... racist.

Twisted cartoon of the day

Thank you, Oleg!

We've come full circle

For Mark Marchiafava, it all started with a pair of socks.

His is a story I'd been covering on and off for two years, so I won't rehash it here. Just take a look at some of the links to get the full story. Mark had gone into a store to buy some socks. He was carrying his gun openly, as is legal in Gonzales, La.

Two years after this fateful trip to Tanger Factory Outlet, Mark has been through an arrest, confiscation of his property, its return, a battle through the legal system, and an eventual resolution... sort of... of his case.

I'm pretty happy to have been the one to bring his ordeal to the attention of thousands of people. The story was featured on KeepAndBearArms.com and reprinted in numerous blogs and discussion boards. And I believe it's only thanks to the attention and outrage of the people around this country that the case was resolved and Mark got his gun back, instead of being tossed into a cell.

It all started with a sock purchase for Mark, and today, guess what I received from him and his lovely wife Barbara - in my mailbox, along with my Guns & Ammo magazine!



Yep! Socks!

So we've come full circle. Mark and Barbara bought these socks for me in the same Tanger Factory Outlet where the trouble started two years ago. And yes... Mark was carrying open during the purchase!

Some blogging news

I thought long and hard about whether or not it would be worth it to change platforms, get my own domain name and start a new blog that is not at the mercy of anyone who decides to hit the "flag" button. So I went and did it.

www.thelibertyzone.com is now my domain. It's far from ready, and I'll be blogging here until I'm ready to move. But I'll be mirroring posts there until I decide to shut down this site, so please don't go anywhere until I let you know.

When I'm ready to officially launch the new site, I'll do a final post here, so you guys know.

Oh, is that all?

This is why I lean toward believing that a benevolent deity does not exist. If he or she did, the Westboro Baptist Hellhouse, would have been completely engulfed in flames with its sociopatic nutbag members trapped inside, unable to move, burning alive and conscious to experience every bit of pain.

I guess since a horrible, fiery death is not in their future quite yet, I'll settle for this.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports on its Web site that a fence and garage at Westboro Baptist Church became engulfed in flames early today.

Topeka Fire Marshal Greg Bailey said the cause of the fire has not been determined.

However, a spokeswoman for the church, Shirley Phelps-Roper, believes it was deliberately set.

Well, the spokesbeast could be right, I suppose. Enough people hate these ignorant, oozing pustules on the ass of humanity that doing something such as this is not out of the realm of possibility.

However, I have a more plausible theory. These fetid warts have been largely ignored by the mainstream. Their efforts to harm the families of our fallen heroes have been effectively subverted by the Patriot Guard Riders. They just don't have the attention that they were garnering when they first started their twisted campaign against our troops. The shock has worn off. Disgust has set in, and people have turned away.

They needed a headline. They set their own property on fire.

That's what I think.