This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
I was looking around Fox News’ website the other day when I noticed an interesting article: Hugo Chavez Mouthpiece Says U.S. Hit Haiti With ‘Earthquake Weapon’ → source
I’m the first to admit Chavez is crazy, but I’ve always felt crazy people view the world from different lenses. And different does not necessarily equate to false. Remember in the movie Men in Black when they checked the ‘hot sheets’ (tabloid)? That kind of ‘different’!
So I looked around. Here’s what I found. You’ll like this.
The Earthquake Machine
In a Department of Defense (DoD) briefing on Monday, April 28, 1997, the then Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen said:
. . . some countries . . . are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
Yes, earthquakes! Don’t bother looking for that information on DoD’s website. It’s not there. You’ll find it on web archive site → here.
It’s not too far-fetched to think that governments, including our own, are working on top-secret and unthinkable weapons that we, normal people, don’t consider within the realm of possibilities. Don’t assume something is impossible just because you think it is.
The Plan
OK, so what if we possess an earth-quake weapon? Where’s the proof we might have used it? Consider this. One day before the earthquake, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in Miami was testing an emergency response system. The scenario? Providing relief to Haiti in the wake of a fictional hurricane. After the earthquake hit on Tuesday, SOUTHCOM decided to go live with the system immediately. How convenient! Check it out for yourself here.
The Reason
So, let’s review. It’s possible that we possess an earthquake machine and it’s also possible that we deployed it in Haiti. The question is why. Well, oil – possibly. Google oil in Haiti, and you’ll find many sources suggesting the possibility.
The Proof
According to bloggers monitoring flightaware.com (a site that records tail number of airplanes landing at most airports), at least one of the planes landing in Port-au-Prince since the earthquake has the following registration: N419AR → source. Who owns this plane? Mar-Don, Inc. What kind of company is that? An oil reclamation service → source
One more thing. Somehow, much of our relief efforts for Haiti has ‘reform’ connotation attached to them. Here’s one example from a CNN headline: “Ex-envoy: Earthquake gives opportunity to reform Haiti”. Why reform? Why now? And that brings us back to oil.
Even Ron Paul said the following about the Haitian relief efforts: “There’s been a coup – have you heard?” → source
My heart goes out to those affected by this earthquake – whatever the cause may have been: God, tectonic plate geology, or earthquake machine.
By now, everyone has heard about the infamous Erin Andrews peep-hole videos. Google it if you haven’t. A million people have blogged it already, so I will refrain from explaining the obvious. I will not weigh in on whether this was an inside job at ESPN, if this will boost Erin’s career, or how much pain this has brought to her life. But I have two observations that no one else seems to emphasize.
First, I find it fascinating that O’Reilly’s coverage of this event focused on how privacy in the digital age has all but disappeared. For a guy who regularly sends his producers out to stalk people that he doesn’t like, O’Reilly argument is stupid. He is one of the biggest violators of privacy himself. His whining about lack of privacy is hurting his credibility and my ears!
Second, I watched Geraldo Rivera’s segment on this issue, and I was stunned to hear him defend the right of the person(s) who recorded the videos. He said:
This is not necessarily a crime. Unless this is a state – there’s only 12 of them that I know – that require both parties to consent. If this is a single party state, and the guy is looking through a peep-hole, I don’t know what’s the crime? What’s the crime?
It really did take me a few minutes to make sense of why he was defending the videos. Now that I understand it, it’s so simple. Geraldo works for Fox News, and this is a clear way of justifying the hidden ACORN videos and defending the rights of the students who made them. I don’t see any other explanation.
By the way, don’t judge what I think of ACORN. You’re most likely going to guess wrong.
Every once in a while, even Glenn Beck conducts a brilliant interview. This video is kind of long – 10 minutes. But it’s absolutely brilliant.
Glenn is interviewing Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.The premise of the interview is very simple. Glenn is asking Blumenthal what law AIG executives broke when they dished out those bonuses. Irrespective of your outrage over bonuses, the right answer is none. And Blumenthal is not prepared for that.
Clearly Glenn Beck is capable of conducting a great interview, just not every day . . . or week . . . or month . . .
Glenn Beck seems to be rising to the top of Fox News lineup. He may be hard-lined, but he’s such a sensitive, fluffy big loveable bear that you just want to hug. NOT!
Watch this video of Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show, Morning Joe. He cannot control his laughter as he shows various clips of Glenn Beck showing his sensitive side. Crying always scores big! And gets even bigger laughs from other men.
So, the mortgage meltdown was caused by the Republicans and on their watch, right? No so fast!
As early as April of 2001, the Bush administration, while working on its 2002 budget, called the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a “potential problem” that could “cause strong repercussions in the financial markets.” In 2003, John Snow, the then Treasury Secretary, lobbied Congress to create a new federal agency to effectively regulate the two mortgage giants. At that time, Barney Frank, a ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was adamantly arguing that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.”
Barney Frank: “The more people, in my judgement, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were problems, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”
Even Alan Greenspan, during a House Financial Services Committee Hearing in 2005, argued for regulating Fannie and Freddie.
John McCain added his concerned voice in 2006 during a speech on the Senate Floor: ” . . . and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market . . . the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”
This entire situation is laced with irony. Here we have Republicans arguing for more regulation while key Democrats arguing that the system is working just fine – mostly in the name of providing affordable housing to all.
I am fully aware that current financial and mortgage disasters were caused by a series of fairly complicated events. Clearly what’s presented here does not fully explain everything, but it is certainly something to think about.
I just discovered this story. It’s a bit late, but I like it nevertheless.
You may have noticed that some old pictures of Barack Obama have recently surfaced. These were taken when Barack was a student at Occidental College in California by a friend. Not surprisingly, Fox News could not wait to jump on this story.
On December 19 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said:
“There are some very intriguing pictures of Barack Obama photos. Look at this one. This one has him smoking a cigarette which we have not seen. Would have served any purpose to release these photos before the election?” → source
Seriously Gretchen? You didn’t know that Obama smoked? Are you truly this uninformed? The rest of us who are not even journalists know that he quit smoking early during his Presidential campaign.
Another notable Fox News personality, Sean Hannity, said during his radio show: “Where were these pictures during the campaign? Just take a look at this. Barack Obama has a hat, you know, pulling a drag on a cigarette.”
Oh, yes, that’s right! Only if America knew about these pictures earlier . . . only if the American people knew that Obama used to smoke and that, at one point in his life, he owned a hat . . . only if we knew! We would have united as a nation in our opposition to “hat wearing smokers from Hawaii running for President” and had voted for the other guy. Only if we knew this prior to the election! That darn media kept these picture from the public until after the election. Gee, if this isn’t a media conspiracy, I don’t know what is.
According to the photographer, Lisa Jack, she had placed these photos in a safe deposit box until after the election. She was concerned that they may be used for “gotcha” purposes.
Grow up Sean. Grow up Gretchen. Move on Fox News. Give me news, not childish garbage. I turn on Fox News to learn, not to see you folks dwell over how the media might have won the election for Obama.
Oh, and apparently Obama’s past smoking (and hat wearing) is a much bigger sin than President Bush’s past drinking. Very fair and balanced, Fox News!
By the way, that thing Obama is smoking looks like a joint to me.
Time magazine has awarded President-elect Obama Person of the Year. In a related story, Vice President-elect Biden has selected Time Magazine’s Jay Carney as his communication director. This, apparently, has set off conspiracy alarms for Sean Hannity.
On the December 17th edition of Hannity & Colmes, Sean said:
Shocker: The president-elect is crowned Time magazine’s Person of the Year; this after Time magazine’s D.C. bureau chief accepts a job in the Obama White House. Ah, I’m sure it’s a coincidence.
News flash, Mr. Hannity. Time Magazine often selects Presidents and President-elects as Person of the Year.
2008 – Barack Obama (President-elect)
2004 – George W Bush (re-elected)
2000 – George W Bush (President-elect)
1992 – Bill Clinton (President-elect)
1990 – George H W Bush (President)
1976 – Jimmy Carter (President-elect)
1964 – Lyndon Johnson (President)
Stop it already with your half-baked conspiracy theories Sean. Do something more useful and productive. Ask Obama what he’s planning to do about the economy. Ask him what his step-by-step plans are for Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask for detailed plans for Iran and North Korea. This B.S. about Person of the Year is completely irrelevant. No one cares. Grow up! Stop wasting your viewers’ time.
I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am not an independent – I don’t even know what that means. I side with Democrats on many issues. I side with Republicans on many others. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for in November.
I watched the first Presidential debate with a clarity and a sense of objectiveness that most people are unable to exert. Most Americans are already committed to their own political party’s candidate. I am not! I don’t belong to one particular party.
I am not going to evaluate any specific topics, points or responses. I’ll let others do the analysis and mudslinging. Here’s what I saw.
It’s not about who won the debate. It seems as though every news and program anchor asks the same question: who won the debate? who won the debate? That’s a childish view of the intent of these debates. It’s not about who won the debate. It’s about 2 entirely different ideas. First, it’s about better understanding each candidate’s position and plans. This mostly applies to undecided voters like me. If you’re an already committed voter, watching these debates are a complete waste of time for you. You’re not changing your mind. Fox News conducted a poll that gave McCain the winning edge by over 80% on the debate. MSNBC gave a smilier edge to Obama. Do you see what I mean? Second, it’s about how each candidate can perform under pressure. They were both well-rehearsed. They both had strong points and they both bended the truth to their side. Neither candidate committed any major blunders, although both missed great opportunities.
Body Language and demeanor of both candidates was very telling. I was impressed by Obama’s cool-under-pressure appearance and performance. He demonstrated substantial presence by looking at McCain, addressing him directly and calling him by name. I was disappointed that McCain did not do the same. He’s been around a long time and has much deeper debate expertise than Obama does. I want my next President to look members of Congress, United Nations and foreign leaders in the eyes and address them – especially in adversarial situations. McCain appeared incapable of thinking on his feet, addressing an audience and debating his opponent at the same time. He only looked at the moderator while sporting smiles of disapproval at Obama. It looked uncomfortable.
Speaking of Obama addressing McCain directly by his first name, many Republicans mounted objections that doing so was an indication of disrespect. Seriously? Since when did you Republicans become so sensitive? Have you ever listened to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Liddy or Savage? Stop your adolescent whining. No one likes to see grown people cry and nag.
Giving Credit where it’s due was performed masterfully by Obama. Half a dozen or so times, Obama mentioned that McCain is correct or that he agrees with McCain. Obama would then proceed to outline the areas where they did not agree. I view that as an uncommon ability among politicians to give credit where credit is due. Republicans quickly produced a video of Obama saying to McCain that he’s right. They’re using it as proof that even Obama thinks McCain’s policies and plans are on the right path. Please! Republicans may be able to fool members of their own party, but don’t insult my intelligence. I saw the debate and I know the context in which Obama gave credit to McCain. For undecided voters, this Republican tactic is backfiring.
Experience v.s. opinion stood out as the theme of this debate. I view McCain as the tough guy who brings a lot of detail to the table and negotiates from a point of strength. I view Obama as a consensus-builder whose approach is the big picture philosophy. While watching the debate, it occurred to me that Obama really doesn’t have any specific mentionable experience in anything. He has opinions, objectives and plans. McCain, on the other hand, has been around a long time. He’s lived through it all. He can draw on experience. Again, I was profoundly disappointed that McCain did not draw more attention to his life experiences.
Obama may be the consensus-building negotiator, but McCain’s reach across the isle over the years is undeniable. He hasn’t always voted with his party. It’s unfortunate that he did not capitalize more on this strength. He lost a great opportunity.
After the debate, I flipped through Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. Rudy Giuliani analyzed the debate on Fox News. He was spot on. It is fairly clear to me that the Republican party nominated the wrong person. Rudy should have been their man. Is it too late to switch?
The new revelation that Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, is pregnant has rekindled an old debate: should families of nominees be off-limits? I have always maintained that families, beliefs and secrets of all policy makers are fair game. Shocked? Don’t be. The alternative would be silly.
We elect policy makers who set the course of our civic lives. In return, we should expect them to propagate initiatives that they, themselves, adhere to and respect. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the idea of do as I say and not as I do.
Bill Clinton’s difficulty in comprehending what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is notwithstanding, his sexual conduct while President was absolutely fair game. Democrats attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that the President’s sexual conduct had nothing to do with (and did not affect) conducting the business of the people. Wrong! Being the leader of the free world, the trust it requires and the responsibilities it carries have EVERYTHING to do with conducting the business of the people. He had sex with someone other than his wife at the Oval Office. I don’t particularly care about the infidelity part. I do, however, care that it happened while he was President, and that he lied about it.
Feel free to not mention to me that President Bush possibly also lied. This post is about family matters. The premise of the Iraq war is irrelevant here.
Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter is absolutely fair game. He should not support a constitutional amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage if his own family includes a lesbian.
Accordingly, Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter is absolutely fair game. Many in her own Republican party would consider this a failure of parenthood, strong family or religion. All efforts by the Palins and the campaign to positively spin this unfortunate occurrence by saying that they are very proud of Bristol’s decision to keep the baby and to marry the young man are meaningless. They have no choice in the matter. Aborting the baby would be considered sinful. Not marrying the father of the baby would make Bristol an unwed, underage, single Mom. Either way, Palin would not have earned a spot on the Republican ticket.
And now for the kicker. Remember when Britney Spears’ younger sister, Jamie Lynn, became pregnant at 16? I remember how Conservative media personalities such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly had a field day with that. O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn “. . . the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her . . .”
Well, that was then, and it was about a God-less liberal entertainer brat. Sarah Palin’s situation is completely different. Right? Reacting to a Cynthia Tucker column in Atlanta Journal-Constitution, O’Reilly explained why Sarah Palin is not to blame:
Now, the latest thing is that people like me don’t condemn Palin’s family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. I’ve never condemned anybody who gave birth out of wedlock. Ever in my life. I don’t make those kinds of determinations. What I do say and, this nut Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes a deal out of this, I said that Britney Spears and what’s her sister’s name who’s pregnant, their parents were irresponsible – Jamie Lee – because they were running around unsupervised. Yeah, I said that and I believe it. It has nothing to do with the Palin situation, okay? So, I mean, it just, it really, it makes me angry. → source
Oh, but it has everything to do with the Sarah Palin situation, Mr. O’Reilly. On the one hand, Jamie Lynn’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 16 was a strong indication of failed or absent parenthood. On the other hand, Bristol Palin’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 17 is a private family matter for the Palins only. It doesn’t make sense, does it?
I only have one thing to say about that: WE’LL DO IT LIVE!
Watch this video if you don’t know that reference.
And here’s a video of Bill Clinton’s difficulty with the word ‘is’.
I was looking around Fox News’ website the other day when I noticed an interesting article: Hugo Chavez Mouthpiece Says U.S. Hit Haiti With ‘Earthquake Weapon’ → source
→ source
Posted by jmjorat 
RSS Feed This Blog
