Sunday, October 31, 2010

Shortest, Smallest Political Quiz- Where Do You Stand Politically

In light of the upcoming elections, for those who haven't voted already (yours truly has), I thought this little quiz might come in handy if you are still stumped about where you stand politically.

It's very short and I'm not quite sure if it's skewed towards Libertarian (since that's what I scored) but it's interesting justthe same.

Political Quiz on (which is actually a Libertarian organization)

Watching Out For Voter Fraud In The 2010 Mid-Term Elections

I never thought my beloved country would ever stoop to voter fraud to ensure a particular candidate would win over another, but considering it has happened in the past, including during the 2008 elections, thanks to ACORN, we can rest assured it will more than likely happen again during these 2010 mid-terms. There is way too much at stake, so it is incumbent upon us all to make sure that with the many tight-races occurring nationwide, that someone doesn't win as a result of fraudulent activity. An election should be won fair and square, regardless of whether or not we like the results, but since the Democratic Party has far more to lose, in many ways, my bets are on them, and this time they have SEIU on their side.

The following conservative website has been established specifically for reporting any voter fraud that you might encounter on election day. Keep those eyes and ears open.

The following is set up for November 2nd:

On November 2nd, if you SEE something, SAY something

CALL: 877.794.0004
CONFERENCE CALL all day and night!

CALL IN NUMBER: (218) 936-7999
BRIDGE: 972046

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Dirty Politics- The 2010 MidTerm Elections

Midterm elections are upon us and I've never seen it quite as down and dirty. On both sides, mind you. More than likely it has to do with the fact that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have much to lose, or gain, depending on your political perspective. The right is trying to dig its way back from the major losses it incurred in 2008 from an Obama win that should never have happened. I blame that on all the disenfranchised Republicans and Independents who chose to sit out the 2008 election or vote Third Party simply because they hated John McCain more than they wanted to retain control. I warned people about that foolish decision- that punishing the Republican Party would ultimately punish the American people, and we are now suffering the consequences.

But the miserable past few years have now galvanized the conservatives into action- the Tea Party movement (which really isn't a Party at all, so they claim) emerged, and people are ready to vote the bums in our government out. However, in their over-zealous efforts to not repeat the mistakes of the past, people blindly voted for a few duds that the Tea Party backed, and who have no chance in hell of ever getting elected. Christine O'Donnell comes to mind, to name a few. While I'm sure she's a lovely woman there is no way the woman will win. I could be wrong but I doubt it. She's way too fringe for the the majority of moderates, independents and liberals, who I believe make up the majority of the American people. Perhaps this will serve as a lesson to the Tea Party elite, that it's ultra important to vet a candidate before you put all your efforts into ensuring they get the nomination. Mike Castle in Delaware, although considered a RINO by many, would have at least voted 70 to 80% of the time with the Republicans, as opposed to the 0% of the time which will happen if as-left-as-you-can-get Chris Coons wins. I'd be much happier with 80% than zippo%, but some people can't quite fathom the importance of that distinction. Then we have Nevada's Harry Reid who should have been dead in the water, but it's looking like he might just retain that seat, thanks to another tea Party favorite who is just too far right for most.

As for the liberals, they're desperately trying to hold on to control of the House and Senate. Thankfully, it looks like that won't happen with the House, but they're doing their damnedest to hold on to the Senate, and doing whatever they can to make sure they don't lose it all.

Politics have always been dirty, and those who started off with a relatively respectful campaign were dragged into a much more negative stance by their opponents. Florida Republican Congressman, LtC Allen West's TV ad's eventually turned negative in response to his Democratic opponent Ron Klein's vicious attacks. The Democrats, in fact, stooped so low that they released West's social security number on an anti-West flyer. Klein's reps claim ignorance, but the flyer included an Indiana tax lien West took 4 months to pay off with the social security number clearly visible, and the lien issue has been prominently featured in all of Klein's rancorous TV ads. I sincerely doubt he wasn't aware of the flyer's contents.

It's too bad we can't have civility in politics, but with a President as polarizing as the one we currently have in office, we can't expect much. All I know is I will be ecstatic come November 3rd, whatever happens.

Quote from Benedict Pringle

Friday, October 29, 2010

Mohammed Top Name For Baby Boys In The UK

Back in 2007, I wrote about how the name Mohammed (in all its multitude of variations) was England's second most popular name in 2006 to call a baby boy. At the time good old 'Jack' was the most popular, but it was predicted that Mohammed would take first place by the following year. The prediction wasn't quite on target- it took top honors in London and a few other regions in 2008, but the name did not hit jackpot until last year.

Apparently, Mohammed (if you include all the different versions) became the number one boy's name across England in 2009, with Jack being booted (after 14 years as king) to third place with Oliver taking second. Whether this is because Islam (as predicted) is the fastest growing religion in the world, or whether the Muslims in the UK are becoming more religious, as some seem to think, is uncertain.

Damian Thompson, of the UK Telegraph, is one who believes it's due to the increased religiosity of young British Muslims. Thompson quotes from a 2007 Policy Exchange Poll:

Young British Muslims are much more likely than their parents to follow the rules of the Islamic religion, a think tank survey showed.

Support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the Hijab is much stronger among younger Muslims, according to the survey by the centre-right Policy Exchange.

The survey of more than 1,000 Muslims from different age groups in the UK, found:

• 71% of over-55s compared with 62% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe that they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain than with Muslims abroad.

• 19% of over-55s compared with 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds would prefer to send their children to Islamic state schools.

• 17% of over-55s compared with 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds would prefer living under Sharia law than British law.

• 28% of over-55s compared with 74% of 16 to 24-year-olds prefer Muslim women to choose to wear the Islamic headscarf

Since the last UK census was in 2001, there's no way to determine if it also has to do with a growing immigrant population, and/or the fact that Muslims have a tendency to encourage the building of large families. Either way, it's an indication that England's Muslim population is becoming more religiously conservative, which ultimately does not bode well for the country. But that's been pretty obvious over the years.

The various spellings included:

Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhamad, Mahammed and Mohmmed.

Bye-bye Jack. I'm sure Mohammed will continue to reign supreme in the poor old UK.

Man Joking About 'Talaq' on Skype Has His Marriage Ended By Deoband

There are some pretty stupid edicts in every religion, but 'Talaq' in Islam takes the cake. First of all, being able to divorce your spouse simply by saying 'Talaq' three times is a major joke, and not a laughable one. It's absolutely ludicrous that all it takes to divorce your spouse is one word repeated three times. Talaq, talaq, talaq - and bye-bye wife. But it's even more ridiculous that a man who was joking around with his wife on Skype is now divorced because of this idiotic rule, and no-one will bend those rules for the hapless couple. And what they have to go through to 'remarry' is even more absurd.

An e-savvy Qatar resident learnt this the hard way when he typed talaq thrice while chatting with his wife on Skype. He says he did not mean it but Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband has ruled that his nikah stands terminated.

That's not all. For his careless 'chat', the man can remarry his divorced wife only after halaala, a practice under which the woman has to marry and divorce another man before she can marry her previous husband again.

Deoband's fatwa section — Dar-ul-Ifta (DuI) — recently received a written request from Qatar, seeking a fatwa on a rather amusing situation. The youth stated that he was recently chatting with his wife on Skype when he typed the word 'talaq' three times, though he did not mean it and asked if his nikah was still valid.

Dar-ul-Ifta shot back that the nikah stands terminated. "When you pronounce talaq three times, it means talaq has taken place, and it does not matter whether the woman has reciprocated or not. Your wife has become 'haraam' for you whether you are aware of the commandment of Islam or not. You neither have the right to take her back nor solemnise new nikah with her without a valid 'halaala'. After the completion of 'iddah' (iddat) period, the woman can marry where she wishes except you," the seminary said.

As per senior Islamic scholars, 'halaala' requires the woman to complete her iddat period of 40 days beginning immediately after talaq. During this period she is supposed to stay away from celebrations and socialising.

At the end of iddat, she would have to marry another man who should then divorce her. She will be required to go through another round of iddat only then would she be eligible to marry her "first husband".

Why the stupid young man even bothered to inquire about this, if it was simply a joke, demonstrates how incredibly fearful people are in that religion. Had he not written Deoband (an Islamic school in India), he wouldn't be dealing with the situation he's now in. In some ways it's his own fault for being so scared that he felt compelled to ask about it, but the whole idea of  'Talaq' needs to be addressed. Divorce shouldn't be that simple. And not to make an exception when it was said in jest is just plain cruel.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Liberalism A Genetic Malfunction- Researchers Discover "Liberal Gene"

So, researchers at Harvard and UC San Diego have discovered what they call the "liberal" gene, the DRD4.

So, does that mean there's a conservative and moderate gene, too? And if so, where did I inherit mine from, since both my parents are Democrats and liberal, although I think my dad's more conservative then he'd like to admit, at least if those political affiliation tests have any validity to them.

I've always wondered what made some people liberals and others conservatives or moderates. Maybe it is genetic and they have no choice but to be the wankers they have a tendency to be. I guess we should feel sorry for them, since if it is genetics they have no control over their idiocy.

Hope they didn't waste taxpayer money on this study.

For the rest of the story click here.

Conservative Canadian Bloggers Need Our Help Against Frivolous Law Suits

Canadian bloggers (and Canadians by extension) are in deep doo-doo when it comes to their freedom of speech. And not just from Islamist ne-er-do-wells who have hides as thin as rice paper who will sue for the lamest of reasons, but they are also being targeted with frivolous law suits by fellow Canucks, aided and abetted by the infamous thought police- the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). If you hang around any of the conservative Canadian blogs like Blazing Cat Fur's, you will be familiar with the name of one Richard Warman, who used to work for the CHRC. Apparently this litigious wacko has nothing better to do than sue anyone who happens to offend him, or who has criticized him in the past and supposedly has about 60 ongoing SLAPP suits according to another blogger. Why the Canadian court system suffers the likes of Warman is beyond me, but it just proves the country is in dire straits.

Blazing Cat Fur was sued by Warman 18 months ago for simply linking, get this, to Mark Steyn's website, and for also linking to a website that lists a bunch of allegations against Warman himself (who apparently posted anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist diatribes on Nazi websites). BCF has already spent $10,000 on his defense against a $500,000.00 law suit by Warman. He now needs some help, so if you can give a little something, go to his website and click on the Feed The Kitty paypal link, you never know when we might also need help.

This country isn't that far behind our Canadian brothers in terms of thought police and censorship. We must fight to maintain our right to free speech, even if it means defending ourselves from frivolous law suits.

Dirty Politics- New Low With Gawker's Publication Of Christine O'Donnell "One Night Stand"

Even as Republican I am no fan of Christine O'Donnell. The Tea Party made a huge mistake by not vetting a few of its candidates who should never have won in the first place, including O'Donnell. And even though she has no chance in hell of winning the Delaware Senate seat that Mike Castle could have handily won, people are stooping to new lows to seal the deal. Politics can get nasty and ugly, but this goes beyond the pale and both sides of the fence are condemning it.

Gawker, a U.S. blog, published an anonymous story about an alleged "one-night stand" that some lowlife claims he had with O'Donnell three years ago. This unnamed 25-year-old Philadelphia jerk was paid 'low four-figures' for this information.

First of all, the fact that they paid for the story and that the pig wasn't even named makes the whole story suspect. In the post he claims she was 'a decent kisser' but that she claimed she was a virgin, as if that should be something to condemn.

He also claims the two did not have sex and makes intimate comments about her body and grooming.

Thankfully, fan or not of O'Donnell, people have condemned Gawker for publishing the story.

'Gawker hits O'Donnell while she's down,' wrote The Atlantic.

In a column for the Huffington Post, author Danielle Crittendon wrote: 'This whole story reeks as a pre-election plant, and Gawker should own up to the identity of this cowardly sexual creep.'

Meghan McCain, daughter of Senator John McCain, Tweeted: 'I am no fan of O'Donnell but what Gawker has done is disgusting and vile, and once again not showcasing the real issues in this election.'

She added: 'This is the exact reason why women don't want to run for office in this country... Anybody saying there isn't a double standard for how the media treats women versus men running for office isn't living in reality.'

The National Organisation for Women (NOW) initially refused to comment, since they are endorsing O'Donnell's opponent Coons, but eventually wrote a statement condemned condemning the story.

It issued a statement tonight stating that 'sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process.'

The organisation's president Terry O’Neill said: 'NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.
Gawker claims they know who the man is and verified his connections to O'Donnell, but that doesn't mean the story is true, especially in light of the fact they did not get a sworn affidavit. Even though there are pictures of O'Donnell in a silly Lady Bug outfit that he supposedly provided Gawker, it still doesn't mean the actual story is true.

O'Donnell is certainly bizarre, and didn't deserve the nomination to begin with, but she also doesn't deserve this, especially since everyone knows there is no way she will win. This is just another demonstration of dirty politics, and in this case it's despicably low.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Joke of the day: Barack's BS Bingo

Just received this in my email.

Here's some fun stuff to do when you feel compelled to torture yourself by watching another of Barack Obama's Teleprompted, snooze-inducing speeches. I usually can't bear to listen to him, but I think I'll play this little game to make it a little more tolerable over the next few years. Follow the directions below.

Rules for Bullshit Bingo:
1. Before Barack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo"
2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"

Saturday, October 23, 2010

L.A. Union StageHand At Obama Rally Fired For Wearing USS George H. W. Bush T-Shirt and Hat In Honor Of His Navy Son

AS a union actress I don't consider myself anti-Union. At least not anti-actors' unions. SAG, AEA and AFTRA, for the most, have created working and safety standards that were and are very necessary. However, I have never appreciated the fact that unions often get involved in politics where they have no place, but they often do, and unfortunately some of my union dues goes to issues that I am opposed to.

That said, the stage workers' union, IATSE, just fired an L.A. stage hand, Duane Hammond, because he happened to be wearing a USS George H. W. Bush T-Shirt, which he refused to turn inside out, and a cap that he refused to remove. The union took offense, apparently, to the fact that he was wearing wardrobe that mentioned the "Bush" name at a location that was setting up for an Obama rally, in spite of the fact that it wasn't a pro-Bush logo, but simply the logo of the ship his son happens to be serving on in the U.S. navy. All this poor man wanted to do was honor his son's service for the past 3 years on the ship that was named after Bush senior. Even though he tried to explain the reasons for wearing the shirt to his union bosses he was unceremoniously sacked.

According to an update, and obviously after much unwanted publicity, the union apologized to Hammond and apparently are "bending over backwards" to make up for their reprehensible actions. This should never have happened, even if Hammond had been wearing a pro-Bush T-shirt. This is a free country, at least I thought it was.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg Walk Off "The View" Set In Unprofessional Hissy Fit

When I heard the news that Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off "The View" in protest, I couldn't imagine what hideously offensive comment Bill O'Reilly might have made that would prompt these women to leave in such a huff. A very unprofessional turn, I might add, to walk off a show you are co-hosting, but I was curious to know what terribly 'bigoted' remark O'Reilly actually made that warranted such action. I cringe, at times, with some things some of our conservative talk show hosts say, but when I eventually found out what this so-called 'bigot' said I was totally shocked. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, considering the sources, but it would have at least been understandable had it been justified.

While trying to explain Barack Obama's low approval ratings, O'Reilly brought up the whole polarizing 'mosque near Ground Zero issue'. Not buying that the polls state 70% of the American population oppose it, the women questioned the validity. When questioned further, O'Reilly revealed that the reason was "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11." Whoopi called it "bullshit" and after some shouting both Whoopi and Joy, like angry children, walked off the set.

Since when is calling a spade a spade bigotry? And since when do we have to qualify our statements every time we speak about "terrorism"? Oh, of course, we're not really supposed to be using the word 'terrorist' (according to Obama) or associating Islam with terrorism, when the majority of terrorists these days just so happen to be Muslims. Or, in this case, we're supposed to refrain from saying that Muslims flew planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania? I think most of us assume when someone refers to Muslims killing us on 9/11 that they're referring to extremists and radical Islam. When we spoke of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and all their terrorist activity during their violent heyday, should we not have called them Irish?

The fact is, it was Muslims not Catholics, not Buddhists, not Hindus, not Jews (although lunatic, delusional Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to think they had something to do with it) Muslims rammed those planes into the Twin Towers in the name of their religion. Yes, they were extremists, but that doesn't change the fact that they were Muslims, and telling people they aren't allowed to mention that is absolutely absurd. Walking off a show because someone mentioned that is even more absurd. Barbara Walters did berate them for walking off, not because she agreed with Bill O'Reilly's statement, but because in this country we should be allowed to debate without being censored or throwing hissy fits.

Whether one agrees with what O'Reilly said or how he said it, he had every right to opine. That's what makes this country great, our freedom of speech which is slowly being whittled away by people like Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg who call us bigots for having opinions that differ from their own.

Grow up and wise up. Being pc about the whole radical Islam issue is not going to make it go away, it's just making its ranks grow stronger.

Source: NYDailyNews

Monday, October 18, 2010

UAE Court Ruling States Men Can Beat Wives And Kids

Domestic violence is a chronic, prevalent problem worldwide and something that should be strongly condemned and prosecuted, and yet women (and some men) wind up killed because rarely is anything done about it. Restraining orders can only go so far, but if a man is intent on killing his wife he will find a way, and it often starts with simple beatings that lead to uncontrollable rage and the desire to permanently harm the spouse. There are no justifiable reasons to ever beat your partner, but in Islam this is actually encouraged by some. Yes, I know there are clerics who like to use the whole toothbrush analogy, but sorry, I don't buy it. Never is it okay to hit your wife, and there is something fundamentally wrong with any religion that condones it, in this day and age.

And yet, the United Arab Emirates has just now ruled that it's perfectly okay (in fact it's a right) for husbands to beat their wives and kids- on one condition - there should be no visible, physical marks. In other words- go ahead men beat the women in your lives as long as you don't bruise them. What is most stupefying is the fact that this is applicable only to the female members of the household. Of course, there's that needed reconciliation attempt before the beating, but if that fails, knock her flat, just don't break her teeth.

The UAE can thank Judge Falah al Hajeri for this latest act of male chauvinism.

The judgment was made by one of the UAE’s most senior judges, Chief Justic Falah al Hajeri, who made the ruling in the case of a man fined £85 for slapping his wife and kicking his daughter.

The Emirati man in the case was found guilty of slapping his wife so hard he damaged her bottom lip and teeth.

He also slapped and kicked his 23-year-old daughter so that she suffered bruises on her hand and knee.

While the defendant, who has not been named, initially claimed he hit the two women only by accident, he was found guilty of assault.

However, he appealed, claiming that even if he had intended to strike his wife and daughter, under Shariah law he had the right to do so if he had first exhausted all other ways of resolving the dispute.

Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri said: 'Although the law permits the husband to use his right to discipline, he has to abide by the limits of this right.

'If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment.'
Mr al Hajeri went on to explain that one of the ways of determining whether a man had breached this limit was to look for physical traces of beating.

Typical classic denial- not intending to hit the wife. These kind of abusive men love to blame the victim, as well as claiming it was the woman's fault. And if he has the right to do it under Shariah law, then Shariah law needs to be dumped or evolve. Women are not the property of men, and they are certainly not children in need of discipline.

There have been some enlightened souls in the Arab world who balked at the ruling, but others who see it as a "real-life compromise"

...between the competing demands of the petro-state’s highly Westernised population and its conservative Muslim heritage.

There should never be any compromise when it comes to domestic violence, I don't care whose religion thinks it's peachy keen to beat a wife.

The Qu'ran mentions something about the right of men to discipline their wives, and that particular verse has often been open to interpretation. Islamic scholars have been battling over that for a very long time. The following two men represent both sides of the argument.

Jihad Hashim Brown, the head of research at the Islamic think tank the Tabah Foundation said beating one’s wife was in conflict most Islamic texts, which encourage Muslims to treat their wives in 'love and kindness'.

He said a Quranic verse might appear to allow certain things but if the verse was not 'clear and concise', it should not enter courts of law.

However, Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, head of Sharia Studies at Iraq’s Baghdad University, said that under Sharia law beating one’s wife was an option to prevent the breakdown of the family.

He said it should be used only as a substitute to resorting to the police. 'If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police,' Dr al Kubaisi said.

'But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option.'

And what about when a man does something wrong, is the wife allowed to deck him, as long as she leaves no marks? She should!

A Female Persian Blogger's Reasons For Wearing The Veil: More Confidence and Better Marriages

Here's some very bizarre insight into why a Muslim woman would actually choose to wear the full face veil (niqab). As odd as it might seem to those of us who treasure the ability to clearly see those we communicate with, to breathe fresh air, and have the sun shine on our faces there are some Muslim women who prefer to be completely covered up, and the reasons for this are incredibly absurd. That's right, not all women are forced by abusive, controlling husbands and fathers to cover their faces, like ninjas, some do it of their own volition.

One Iranian female blogger "Eye and Light" seems to think that veiled women are far more self confident, and much more "successful in their marriages", though what she'd know about either eyes or light is questionable. I'm not sure if she indeed does wear the full veil or perhaps is simply waxing poetic about the virtues of the veil, but this is what she said in this translated post.

Veiled women have more self-confidence. They’re more satisfied with their bodies. As psychologists say, they have a positive body image. For these women their forelegs and lips have a sexual value, therefore they make an effort to cover them. These women don’t consider themselves the same as the unveiled women in the street. They believe their bodies are full of value and beauty and they are sensitive about these values and holding onto them. That is why veiled women are more successful in their marriages. Self-confidence is an important factor in a marriage and veiled woman have more of it.

Women who don’t wear the veil have less self-confidence. They feel they’re missing something in their social life and they want to fill the gap with their femininity. You have to see how hard they try to refresh their make-up in public bathrooms to understand this. It is the issue of self-confidence that reminds Hillary Clinton [to apply] lipstick in the middle of diplomatic talks. [picture of Hillary Clinton here]

Another reason why women who don’t wear the veil don’t have self- confidence is that they feel they’re being judged by many men -- clearly men have different tastes. I know a girl who is very light skinned and blond: she is beautiful, one of those types that are called foreigners. Once her boyfriend told her that a woman should be dark and hot. Poor thing, she was saddened, she asked me whether she was very plain. I told her: no, my dear, you’re not, you’re very pretty and European. Your problem is that you’ve sold yourself cheap to any worthless guy who can voice his opinion about you.

Uh, wrong Miss "Eye and Light", most of us unveiled women have plenty of confidence, thank you very much, and most women, at least in the West, don't walk around thinking of our lips and forelegs as sexually charged objects. Nor do we, in the West, both males and females go around looking at every person we meet in a sexual manner. People are far too harried and hurried to notice others, and since we are not covered up, the body becomes a non-issue. It's the women who dress in extremes that get noticed in the West, the women who cover themselves up and the women who dress immodestly, the rest of us for the most part go unnoticed.