Syrian Password Fail

Bashar Al Assad isn't just an evil, mass murdering Arab dictator, he's also not too bright.

Last week, the shadowy online activist group known as Anonymous penetrated 78 email accounts from Syria’s ministry of presidential affairs and posted their contents online. The hackers found that many of the accounts, including that of the allegedly computer-savvy Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, used one of the world’s weakest passwords: 12345.

The real story in this article is that the same sermonizing, self-righteous, Leftist American "journalists" that quake at the thought of all us radical Right-wing "Christianists" turning the US into a Christian theocracy sent the Assad regime all kinds of boot-licking, butt-kissing emails to gain access to interviews with Assad and project a rosy picture of Assad's brutal regime back to the US.

But I just couldn't stop thinking of this.

Homeschooling for the Zombie Apocalypse

Have you trained your kids in the use of melee weapons and small unit tactics?

Making Things Worse (Continued)

Recently I posted empirical evidence that Pres Obama, far from saving us from economic Armageddon as his worshipers claim, actually made things worse through bad policy.  This time we'll take a look at one of those bad policies and its outcomes (so far).

Before Obamaphiles get in too big a tizzy, let's all acknowledge that then-Senator Obama actually warned us back in January 2008 that his policies would do exactly that.



Everything - absolutely everything - we do in the economy requires energy, so if energy prices "necessarily skyrocket", that would obviously choke off economic growth.  One way to decrease the price of energy is to increase supply.  And that's exactly what Pres Obama prevented by denying the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion from Alberta to Texas.

President Obama, denouncing a “rushed and arbitrary deadline” set by congressional Republicans, announced Wednesday that he was rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate the Keystone XL pipeline, a massive project that would have stretched from Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Texas.

Yeah.  "Rushed and arbitrary".  He only had over two years to make a decision.  In fact, he made the decision over the objections of his own "Jobs Council". 

“Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,” the council reported, “is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.” 

It added that regulatory “and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.”  

 Duh.  Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?  Not if your name is Obama, apparently.

Who gets hurt worst by "skyrocketing" energy prices?  Obviously, poor people do.

“Lower-income families are more vulnerable to energy costs than higher-income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets,” according to the study, which relied on Energy Information Administration data. 

Energy costs this year will represent 24 percent of after- tax income for families earning $10,000 to $30,000, up from 14 percent in 2001. Families with after-tax income from $30,000 to $50,000 will spend 7 percent of their earnings on electricity, according to the study.

Why does Pres Obama  hate poor people? 


But hey, at least Pres Obama's billionaire patron, Warren Buffet, benefited from it.

As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety.

As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.  What a coincidence! 

And now the Chinese will benefit from Pres Obama's decision.

The prospect of Canada entering free-trade talks with China is suddenly being discussed, as Chinese leaders indicated during Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit that they are prepared to head down that path — even though Canadian officials aren't so sure this country is ready for the jump. 

The development came as China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached "a new level" following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower

To make matters worse, while Pres Obama dithered for two years, refusing to make a decision on a privately-funded project that would obviously generate tens of thousands of jobs (no big deal, according to Democrats) and help boost the economy, Pres Obama spent billions of tax payer dollars on "green" tech failures like Solyndra and Fisker.

So, Obamaphiles; still insist that The One rescued us from the next Great Depression?  Of course you do!  Your adoration was never based on facts, reason or logic, after all.

Christian-Bashers on Facebook: Stereotypes, Hypocrisy, and Double Standards

This is a guest post by Aimee.  She first planned to write this as a note on Facebook, but since the Blogger format is so much easier to read, we decided she should post here instead.  Enjoy! (or not) ~Oscar

This is a vent about garbage I’ve seen on Facebook lately; specifically about hypocrisy and double standards directed at Christians.  I have friends that are not Christians, and friends that are, but have very different views than mine.  I have never “unfriended” anyone because I disagreed with them, even when they've directly attacked Believers in general, or even me personally.  I also don’t “deny” anyone their opinion.  I ask questions and challenge people’s opinions (which everyone has the right to do), but that is completely unrelated to “allowing” someone to have an opinion.  When I do disagree (politely I might add) I get “unfriended” and attacked; they throw insults at me, twist my words out of context, etc.  I believe what I do and live my life the way I do because it’s logical and makes sense to me.  I have no problem with people asking me questions or disagreeing with me.  I do have problems with people accusing me of things and calling me names without  allowing me to defend myself or even allowing me to respond.

Believe it or not, I never try to offend people by posting my bold views and beliefs.  I  am specifically thoughtful toward my atheist friends and those that I know have different views.  Some may be offended by my beliefs themselves, but I never intentionally set out to hurt people.  Since some do not reciprocate that courtesy and respect (they stereotype me and call me names), I feel free to politely defend myself.

With that said, a “friend” posted a short article about Christians boycotting Starbucks because Starbucks funds political campaigns that seek to legalize gay marriage.  Naturally, this gay “friend” was upset about it.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  She then called the Christian group - Christian Ministries - “f*cking idiots” and all of the people that commented said things like, 

"christians" are stupid for going against a company just because their [sic] pro same sex marriage.

First; what if I called lesbians “f*cking idiots” because they are boycotting something, like, oh let’s just say the Salvation Army?  What if I said gay people were stupid?  I would get verbally attacked and, on Facebook, probably “unfriended” by many people, Christians included.  If I saw or heard someone else say that, I’d confront them about it.  I wouldn’t stereotype a whole demographic and I certainly wouldn’t stoop to name-calling in a childish attempt to make my point.  For example, I’m defending myself against the specific people directly in this post, not the entire Gay and Lesbian Community.  I know several happy, tolerant, reasonable gay people; which by the way, they don’t call people names.   I would also like to point out that I’ve never heard any professing Christian call anybody that is a non-Christian any name, ever.  I’ve been an active Christian for about 12 years, attended 4 different churches in 4 different denominations, and attended at least a dozen small group bible studies where no one was called any name.  So who is being intolerant here?  Who is making stereotypes?  Who is bullying whom?  Why is bigotry and intolerance towards Christians acceptable?  Why is hate speech (yeah, I just said it) acceptable when it’s directed toward Christians?

Secondly, does boycotting a company make you an “idiot” or “stupid”?  One person posted, 

What does coffee have to do with same sex marriage?? If they support it OR not support it, does that affect their ability to make coffee?  

No one is arguing Starbucks' “ability” to make coffee.  “Ability” has nothing to do with it.  People choose to not support companies financially, i.e. boycotting, because when they purchase that overpriced cup of coffee, some of that money goes to support causes they don’t support, such as gay marriage.  So by purchasing their product you are indirectly supporting causes you don’t believe in.  For example, we no longer financially support the Girl Scouts because of their partnerships with Planned Parenthood and other Pro-Choice organizations.  Does that make me a “f*king idiot” or “stupid”?  I think it’s smart.  I think it’s illogical to say you don’t support something, yet give money to organizations that do support those causes, whatever those causes may be.  That would be stupid; saying, for example, that I don’t support Planned Parenthood and then giving the Girls Scouts money that they turn around and give to Planned Parenthood.

Third, what’s with all the anger?  I get it that in this example lesbians and/or liberals are offended that people who don’t support their lifestyle and are voicing their opinion; that happens to Christians all the time.  Christians experience intolerance, hate speech, violence, loss of Constitutional freedoms, and (mostly in other countries) even death for our beliefs daily.  

Again, I understand anger or frustration of a person’s life-style being criticized.  In regards to this facebook post, why is name calling necessary?  One person on this topic did say,

 Either way, it's a nice thing to economically support people who support your community.  

I appreciate and agree with them on that point.  However the next sentence they said was, 

And, ultimately, if I can piss a bunch of fundamentalist christians off with my coffee, then so much the better  

Again, who is being intolerant here?   What would their reaction be if I bragged that I enjoy “pissing off lesbians”?  I would never say that because I don’t believe it, but what a double standard and hypocrisy.  By the way, someone's support of Starbucks, and what day they choose to buy coffee, doesn't faze me in the least.   


Interestingly, the next day another friend of mine on Facebook, who happens to be a Christian, posted that some Anti-Gun Organizations are planning a boycott Starbucks, yet again, on Valentine’s Day.  Did she call them “f*king idiots”, or rant about how “stupid” anti-gun people were?  Nope.  She just said that since she’s pro-gun-ownership, that she would make a point to buy a latte on Valentine’s Day.

 

My point here is that I don’t hate people who boycott things I believe in; it’s a right and freedom we all enjoy in this country.  I think demonstrations and boycotts are very healthy and civil methods to stand up against or for causes and companies.  I don’t begrudge people this freedom or right and I’d really appreciate if others would reciprocate the courtesy. 

Fourthly, the people in this discussion are hypocrites.  I know hypocrisy is the “go-to” argument against Christians, but I’ve actually found the opposite to be closer to the truth.  Liberals tend to be more hypocritical and intolerant of other people’s views.  One commenter posted,

No one should pick up a freaken [sic] torch and march around just cus [sic] you don’t like it. Some people are just so stupid.  

I am not calling the gay and lesbian community “stupid”, but going along with her argument, she is, because the Gay and Lesbian Community often calls for boycotts and demonstrations, such as in October 2010 in San Diego against hotels for financially supporting Prop. 8.  The Gay and Lesbian Community also boycotted A1 Storage in 2008.  They boycotted the Salvation Army in December of 2011.  There are so many more; Target, Best Buy, Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Coors… the list goes on and on.  To take it even further, gay and lesbian couples have sued private businesses, such as this Vermont Inn, for not hosting a lesbian wedding on their private property (Freedom of association, anyone?).  Where were their anti-lesbian posts for these?  Why didn't I see them calling other gay and lesbian people “f*king idiots” and “stupid”?  Why are they criticizing Christians and calling us names for doing far less than what gay and lesbian groups do?  I think it’s pretty obvious that calling Christian groups stupid for boycotting Starbucks, and/or claiming that Christians in general are stupid for doing so, while gay and lesbian groups boycott and even sue private businesses wantonly, is completely hypocritical. 

Lastly, I sincerely hope that I don’t get “unfriended” by anyone, I think that would be drastic and intolerant, but I think it says more about them than it does about me.  After all, I didn’t “unfriend” anyone when they tossed around insults, intolerance and bigotry. 

I have no problem with people commenting or disagreeing with me, however I expect a polite conversation (no name calling) with evidence to support any claims you make.  I expect people to think about what they believe before commenting and not just express pure emotion.  However, if that is impossible, feel free to prove me right with even more stereotypes, hypocrisy and double standards.  I hope we can discuss, question, and challenge each other’s beliefs in a polite manner, that’s how we change or solidify our beliefs. 


Thanks for reading; happy, logical, and polite facebooking!

Iranian Female Ninjas

I can't believe I actually wrote that title.  Check out the video.



I can't decide what's funniest; the seriousness with which the journalist takes this story, the cheesily dramatic music or their ridiculously impractical "fighting style".  Don't get me wrong, I appreciate their athleticism and acrobatics, but watching the video I couldn't stop thinking of this.

Farewell, Bamberg

Aimee and I spent five years stationed at Warner Barracks in Bamberg, Germany.  I was deployed half that time, but the time we spent together in Bamberg is very special to us.  Besides being a beautiful little city with amazing architecture and friendly people, Bamberg was where we spent the first few years of our marriage (not counting the very first year, which we spent apart), it was where we lived when we adopted our first five kids, the home base from which we saw much of Europe and where we met many friends we still love and with whom still keep in touch.

This travel blog photo's source is TravelPod page: Bamberg Germany a beautiful Town

This travel blog photo's source is TravelPod page: Bamberg Bound

So, it's with great sadness that we learn from friends on Facebook that Warner Barracks is likely closing, along with other installations in Germany.




To be fair, rumors of Warner Barracks' demise have circulated for decades, but this time, with the Federal Government running $Trillion+ deficits four years in a row, it's much more likely.

Either way, Aimee and I feel enormously blessed to have lived there for a time.  Farewell, Bamberg.  We hope to visit again some day.

"Liberal" Christians

Earlier I argued that "Liberal" Christians use shoddy theology to justify their love of bloated, morbidly obese government and force their Socialist policies onto the rest of us.  Given their willingness to twist sacred Scripture, it should come as no surprise that they also twist the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson's writings.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's the quote from the Reverend Al Sharpton:

Rev. Al Sharpton: No, I think you have to have the reverse argument, and that is if I want to seek employment and have employment in a church but that I disagree with the dogma and theology of the church, do I have the right to be protected by law? And I think that what the Obama administration is saying that you do not have to follow the tenets of a church organization to be an employee of a church. 

Scarborough: Do you think this is a good decision? 

Sharpton: If we are going to have a separation of church and state, we’re going to have a separation of church and state. Whether I would personally agree with the decision or not, the question is do I have a right to make that law?

So, let me get this straight; in order to separate Church and State, we have to give the State the power to force the Church to violate its religious principles.

Are you serious?

Is Sharpton actually stupid enough to believe this argument, or has he cynically reasoned that MSNBC viewers - and "Liberals" in general - are stupid enough to buy it?

First, the US Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of Church and State".  If you don't believe me, go a head and look for it yourself.  All the Constitution states on the matter is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Do you suppose that forcing religious organizations to violate their religious principles might constitute "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

The phrase "separation between Church & State" originates from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. 

 In other words, the purpose of the "wall of separation between Church & State" is to protect the Church from the State, not to protect the State from the Church.

Think about it; if the State does something the Church doesn't like, what can the Church do about it?  Who holds a monopoly on the police, the military, taxation and every other agent of force in society; the Church or the State?

To be clear, that's the way things should be.  As I stated earlier,

justice is the role of government, charity, grace and mercy are the roles of the Church   

Justice often requires the application of force, which is why government must hold a monopoly on the application of force in society,  but that is also why it's crucial that we limit government, so it doesn't grow too powerful and abuse its power and our rights.

Christians; stop supporting bloated, morbidly obese government.  Support limited government and do your job as the body of Christ on Earth; charity, grace and mercy.