This is the list of NukeSentinel(tm) banned IP addresses.
→ October, 2015
→ September, 2015
→ August, 2015
→ July, 2015
→ June, 2015
→ May, 2015
→ April, 2015
→ March, 2015
→ February, 2015
→ January, 2015
→ December, 2014
→ November, 2014
→ October, 2014
→ July, 2014
→ May, 2014
→ April, 2014
→ March, 2014
→ February, 2014
→ January, 2014
→ December, 2013
→ October, 2013
→ September, 2013
→ August, 2013
→ July, 2013
→ June, 2013
→ May, 2013
→ April, 2013
→ March, 2013
→ February, 2013
→ January, 2013
→ December, 2012
→ November, 2012
→ October, 2012
→ September, 2012
→ August, 2012
→ July, 2012
→ June, 2012
→ May, 2012
→ April, 2012
→ March, 2012
→ February, 2012
→ January, 2012
→ December, 2011
→ November, 2011
→ October, 2011
→ September, 2011
→ August, 2011
→ July, 2011
→ June, 2011
→ May, 2011
→ April, 2011
→ March, 2011
→ February, 2011
→ January, 2011
→ December, 2010
→ November, 2010
→ October, 2010
→ September, 2010
→ August, 2010
→ July, 2010
→ June, 2010
→ May, 2010
→ April, 2010
→ March, 2010
→ February, 2010
→ January, 2010
→ December, 2009
→ November, 2009
→ October, 2009
→ September, 2009
→ August, 2009
→ July, 2009
→ June, 2009
→ May, 2009
→ April, 2009
→ March, 2009
→ February, 2009
→ January, 2009
→ December, 2008
→ November, 2008
→ October, 2008
→ September, 2008
→ August, 2008
→ July, 2008
→ June, 2008
→ May, 2008
→ April, 2008
→ March, 2008
→ February, 2008
→ January, 2008
→ December, 2007
→ November, 2007
→ October, 2007
→ September, 2007
→ August, 2007
→ July, 2007
Thank you, President Bush
And Navy SEALs
|Report: N. Korea Has Nuclear Warheads for Missiles |
ICBMS can reach Hawaii, Alaska, and western United States
Kim Jong Un is a fat little toad with gout who the world would be better off without (AP)
North Korea has developed nuclear weapons capable of being launched on its ballistic missile forces, according to a new report by a defense analyst.
The Obama administration is seeking to hide the fact that North Korea possesses nuclear missile warheads, according to a report by Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic analyst and director for forces policy at the office of the secretary of defense. Schneider’s statement came in a report published April 28 in the journal Comparative Strategy.
According to the 16-page report, “The North Korean Nuclear Threat to the United States,” the Defense Intelligence Agency stated in an unclassified assessment made public a year ago that “DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North [Korean government] currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles.”
“This is disturbing news,” the report says. “The North Korean regime is one of the most fanatic, paranoid, and militaristic dictatorships on the planet. … While North Korea has long made occasional nuclear attack threats, the scope, magnitude, and frequency of these threats have vastly increased in 2013.”
North Korea has in the recent months issued provocative threats to carry out nuclear strikes on U.S. cities and against American allies.
According to the report, the Obama administration has sought to hide the alarming intelligence because it undermines efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Administration spokesmen sought to “walk back” the unwelcome intelligence of nuclear missile warheads with officials asserting that the nuclear strike capability is limited or untested.
|Posted by Southern on Tuesday, October 06, 2015 @ 23:41:23 EDT (0 reads) |
|Pre U.S. Senate, Obama Was Upside Down |
Of all the blogs I have posted, this is the most sought after piece. As we head into the weekend I present it to you once again.
In criticizing the President my point is, if you are competent with the small things, then you will likely be trustworthy of handling the bigger issues. When it comes to the economy, Obama couldn’t get a grip on his personal economic situation before he became a U.S. Senator, and he clearly is clueless now.
You see, back in the day Barack and Michelle appear to have been totally irresponsible with their finances. So, it should come as no surprise that this is a man who has no clue on how to fix, let alone preside over, the biggest economy in world history.
This story was originally published at Zero Hedge:
WAS OBAMA A SUB-PRIME BORROWER?
By Tyler Durden
… it seems that during his pre-Senator years, he and Michelle spent substantially more than their income and made up the difference by repeatedly taking out loans against the rising value of their home during the home-price bubble. At least according to this story…
In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.
Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250….
And they weren’t exactly “poor” during this time. They were what they now call “the rich”. Apparently they were just free with their money, not rich enough, spending more than they had coming in …
During the presidential primary campaign, Michelle Obama complained how tough it was to make ends meet … “I know we’re spending – I added it up for the first time – we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth.”…
The Obamas’ adjusted gross income averaged $257,000 from 2000 to 2004. This is above the threshold of $250,000 which Obama initially used as the definition of being “rich” for taxation purposes during last year’s election campaign.
The Obama family apparently had little or no savings during this period since there was virtually no taxable interest shown on their tax returns.
… until he got elected to the Senate in 2005 …
|Posted by Southern on Tuesday, October 06, 2015 @ 22:44:49 EDT (0 reads) |
"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
"Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia--or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
"The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is, if one's motive is men's welfare.
"Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly."
From: "The Monument Builders," from The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, c. 1964
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism--by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
From: "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon," by Ayn Rand, pub. in Los Angeles Times, 9/9/62 G2
"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories; socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates 'the vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.
"Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility."
From: "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus," from Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, c.1966
"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.
"The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal."
Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5
[Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] "Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper."
"Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning, quoted in The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff C. 1982
|Posted by Southern on Saturday, October 03, 2015 @ 01:05:03 EDT (11 reads) |
|Never blame the left |
Never Blame the Left The Left is perceived as kind and caring, despite its extensive history of promoting genocide.
from National Review, 1995-Dec-31, by George Watson:
The Left is perceived as kind and caring, despite its extensive history of promoting genocide.
When it comes to handing out blame, it is widely assumed that the Right is wicked and the Left incompetent. Or rather, you sometimes begin to feel, any given policy must have been Right if it was wicked, Left if it was incompetent.
Mr. Watson, formerly a professor at New York University and now a fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, is the author of Politics & Literature in Modern Britain and The Idea of Liberalism He is currently completing a history of socialism.
To give an example: I happened recently in Vienna to pass a restaurant that was advertising Jewish food, with two armed policemen standing outside. They were there, one of them explained to me, to guard against right wing radical extremists. There had been no violence against the restaurant then, and I believe there has been none since. But racism, and especially anti-Semitism, is wicked, so it must be right-wing.
That is fairly astounding, when you think about it. The truth is that in modern Europe, genocide has been exclusively a socialist idea, ever since Engels proclaimed it in Marx's journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in January-February 1849. Ever since then everyone who has advocated genocide has called himself a socialist, without exception.
The Left has a lot to hide. In the 1890s, for example, French socialists dissociated themselves from the Dreyfus affair, and in January 1898 the French Socialist Party issued a manifesto that called it a power struggle within the ruling classes, and warned the workers against taking sides in the matter. Dreyfus's supporters were Jewish capitalists, they argued, eager to clear themselves of financial scandals. A few years later, in 1902, H. G. Wells in Anticipations repeated the Marxist demand for genocide, but with variations, since the book is a blueprint for a socialist utopia that would be exclusively white.
A generation later Bernard Shaw, another socialist, in a preface to his play On the Rocks (1933), called on scientists to devise a painless way of killing large mulititudes of people, especially the idle and the incurable, which is where Hitler's program began six years later. In a letter to his fellow socialist Beatrice Webb (February 6, 1938) Shaw remarked of Hitler's program to exterminate the Jews that ``we ought to tackle the Jewish question,'' which means admitting ``the right of States to make eugenic experments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable.'' His only proviso was that it should be done humanely.
Ethnic cleansing was an essential part of the socialist program before Hitler had taken any action in the matter. The Left, for a century, was proud of its ruthlessness, and scornful of the delicacy of its opponents. ``You can't make an omelette,'' Beatrice Webb once told a visitor who had seen cattle cars full of starving people in the Soviet Unions, ``without breaking eggs.''
There is abundant evidence, what is more, that the Nazi leaders believed they were socialists and that anti-Nazi socialists often accepted that claim. In Mein Kampf (1926) Hitler accepted that National Socialism was a derivative of Marxism. The point was more bluntly made in private conversations. ``The whole of National Socialism is based on Marx,'' he told Hermann Rauschning. Rauschning later reported the remark in Hitler Speaks (1939), but by that time the world was at war and too busy to pay much attention to it. Goebbels too thought himself a socialist. Five days before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, in June 1941, he confided in his diary that ``real socialism'' would be established in that country after a Nazi victory, in place of Bolshevism and Czarism.
The evidence that Nazism was part of the socialist tradition continues to accumulate, even if it makes no headlines. In 1978 Otto Wagener's Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant appeared in its original German. Wagener was a lifelong Nazi who had died in 1971. His recollections of Hitler's conversations had been composed from notes in a British prisoner-of-war camp, and they represent Hitler as an extreme socialist utopian, anti-Jewish because ``the Jew is not a socialist.'' Nor are Communists--``basically they are not socialistic, since they create mere herds, as in the Soviet Union, without individual life.'' The real task, Hitler told Wagener, was to realize the socialist dream that mankind over the centuries had forgotten, to liberate labor, and to displace the role of capital. That sounds like a program for the Left, and many parties called socialist have believed in less.
Hitler's allegiance, even before such sources were known, was acknowledged by socialists outside Germany. Julian Huxley, for example, the pro-Soviet British biologist who later became director-general of UNESCO, accepted Hitler's claim to be a socialist in the early 1930s, though without enthusiasm (indeed, with marked embarrassment).
Hitler's program demanded central economic planning, which was at the heart of the socialist cause; and genocide, in the 1930s, was well known to be an aspect of the socialist tradition and of no other. There was, and is, no conservative or liberal tradition of racial extermination. The Nazis, what is more, could call on socialist practice as well as socialist theory when they invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 and began their exterminatory program. That is documented by Rudolf Hoess in his memoir Kommandant in Auschwitz (1958). Detailed reports of the Soviet camp system were circulated to Nazi camp commandants as a model to emulate and an example to follow.
|Posted by Southern on Friday, October 02, 2015 @ 23:31:06 EDT (9 reads) |
- Friday, September 18, 2015
- Saturday, August 15, 2015
- Sunday, August 09, 2015
- Saturday, August 08, 2015
- Thursday, July 30, 2015
- Wednesday, July 29, 2015
- Sunday, June 28, 2015
- Friday, May 29, 2015
- Saturday, April 25, 2015
- Friday, April 24, 2015
- Older Articles
Set as Homepage
12:22, Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.