Featured Post

It seems Pope Francis needs to brush up on his Tertullian!

It has been reported (in The ChristLast Media, I must note) that the current Pope does not like the phrase "lead us not into temptation...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Friday, October 19, 2012

Why, lookee there! It appears some shenanigans are going on.

From The Daily Caller:

California official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor

Remember Fyodor's Rule #10, kiddies: You do not need a conspiracy if everyone thinks the same way.

Marty Morgenstern, the secretary of the California agency that substantially under-reported unemployment claims last week, contributed to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign, The Daily Caller has learned.

On Oct. 11, the federal government reported that weekly jobless claims were down significantly, suggesting a dramatic national increase in economic growth and a steep decline in layoffs.  Jobless claims, according to the Labor Department, had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, their lowest level since February 2008.

The good news for the Obama administration spread quickly, with outlets like CNN and Bloomberg declaring, “Jobless claims fall to four-year low.”

But within hours, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Labor Department analysts announced that one major state had failed to fully document jobless claims. They declined to name the state.

Speculation among market watchers and economists initially focused on California, but the state’s Employment Development Department strongly denied that it had failed to properly document the data.

“Reports that California failed to fully report data to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required, are incorrect and irresponsible,” California Employment Development Department director Pam Harris said in a statement last week. “The California Employment Development Department, which administers the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program in the state, has reported all UI claims data and submitted the data on time.”

Early Thursday, the federal government finally revealed that California had, in fact, under-reported jobless data, skewing the national jobless claims results. This week’s updated jobs report corrected the error and showed unemployment claims spiking back up by 46,000 to 388,000.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Morgenstern to lead the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in 2011. The state agency oversees the Employment Development Department.

According to campaign disclosure records, Morgenstern donated $4,600 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to the 2008 Obama camapaign, beginning with a $1,000 contribution to Obama for America in February 2008. Morgenstern followed up that donation with a $1,300 contribution in June, and then a $2,300 payout in early September.

On all three disclosures, Morgenstern indicated that he was either ”not employed” or “retired.”

According to the Sacramento Business Journal, however, Morgenstern was employed since 2003 as a consultant for the liberal University of California education system.

California officials have denied wrongdoing.



Even dogs know it's a planet.

THIS is why the Boy Scouts of America want to keep perverts out.

This is the horror perpetrated against Scouts when homosexuals were pariahs and everyone expected the BSA to keep them out. Imagine how much worse it would be if the fascist left enables the sodomites to bully their way in.

From Roto-Reuters via Yahoo News:

Boy Scouts release sex abuse files

The Boy Scouts of America, acting on a court order, released on Thursday thousands of files that detail allegations and admissions of child sex abuse within the organization between 1965 and 1985.

A total of 1,247 men, ranging from college students to retirees and from all walks of life, are mentioned in the "ineligible volunteer" files. They include a school custodian, a staff engineer from IBM, a chemical engineering major at a local university, a salesman and a chemist.

Here are a handful of cases that appear in the files:

Minnesota: In 1982, Rochester Scout council executive Graham Howard learned that one of his troop leaders, a 47-year-old staff engineer for IBM, was under investigation by local police for allegedly molesting local Boy Scouts, according to the files. In a letter to the national office, Howard recounted how he had tried to contact the man to "seek his resignation" from the Boy Scouts, without success.

Howard wrote that he then called the national, regional and local Boy Scout council officials, other youth organizations the man was involved with, his staff, and finally an attorney - to notify them all of the investigation. The files said the attorney, Howard wrote, "suggested we not put on the confidential list until he had been sentenced because in the State of Minnesota this could allow for slander in case he was not convicted."

Indiana: The parents of two Scouts in Indiana told troop leaders in 1982 that their sons had been molested by a veteran Scout leader during a sleepover at his home, according to the files. The man, a 32-year-old sales representative for an air filter company, had been placed on the Boy Scouts' internal watch list in the early 1970s after admitting to molesting several Boy Scouts.

"At that time (1972-73) he took treatment and on the advice of the psychiatrist treating him and his minister, he was allegedly ‘cured,'" the official wrote, according to the files. Confronted with the new allegations by Scouting officials, the man initially denied abusing the two boys and suggested that his actions had been "misunderstood."

Local Scouting officials threatened to turn him over to police, and the man admitted to the new allegations and resigned from Scouting. There is no indication in the files that police were ever contacted.

California: In 1985, a Sacramento, California troop learned that one of its leaders - a 44-year-old home alarm system installer - had been among a group of men arrested and charged with molesting local boys, including at least one Scout. The men were reportedly members of an organization that celebrates pedophilia called NAMBLA, or the North American Man/Boy Love Association, according to the files.

Colorado: In 1980, the father of three boys reported that his sons said they were molested by a 36-year-old Scout leader who worked as a custodian at a local high school. The father went to police and the man was arrested and charged with sexual molestation of the boys.

The father later ran into the man, who was out on bail, at a Scout leadership training session, according to the files.

Virginia: A Scout leader in the late 1970s was convicted of child molestation while serving in a San Diego troop. He was placed on probation, but later moved to a troop in Virginia, according to the files. A Virginia Scouting official learned of the California conviction after the man was accused of molesting Scouts in his troop. "It is absolutely unforgivable that did not report this problem to you," Virginia Scout official Randall Weaver wrote to the national BSA office in 1984. 
"It has been a nightmare for us."

IMPEACH THE MUTHA! PART 2: The CIA ain't laying down for Okhrana.

 If there is any justice in this world, this will put an end to the arch-pervert and arch-criminal Benito Hussein Okhrana, who went  fundraising in Las Vegas and mutual slurping with  David "Statutory Rape" Letterman instead of being a man.

From AP via Yahoo News:

CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn't specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for the early conflicting accounts.

The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.

Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault."

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd," and it took until the following week to figure that out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

"I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment," said Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5 in California this week. "I think that was possibly a mistake."

"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.

"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it's also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack, since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

Gangnam Style: Fyodor surrenders to the inevitable...

...or, None dare call it World Music.

 From Youtube:


Can half a billion of my brothers and sisters be wrong? I suppose.

Sure it's a catchy tune, but if I posted every catchy tune here [chronologically] , I wouldn't even be up to Paganini yet, so it's not just that.

Could it be the hot Korean [I'm assuming, of course. All hot babes look the same to me - HOT!] babes? Could be, but I'm still working my way around the babeverse alphabetically and I'm not done with the letter A yet. [Albanian babes are hot! Oops! I forgot the Azerbaijani babes.]

It's better than Frausun or The Magnetic Fields, but that's damning with faint praise. It's not better than The Cramps best stuff, or Tav Falco's Panther Burns, but few are. Maybe it's the natural attraction one feels for the new and slightly different.

Maybe I should just shut up and dance...

Whatever. It's fun.

As you probably guessed from the video, the song is basically about pretty girls and why they should go for less than perfect guys. But for those of you who must know, here are the lyrics, sort of.

From Kpoplyrics.net:

         PSY – Gangnam Style Lyrics

Translation Credits: pop!gasa
Romanizations by: kpoplyrics.net

English Translation:

Oppa is Gangnam style
Gangnam style
A girl who is warm and humanle during the day
A classy girl who know how to enjoy the freedom of a cup of coffee
A girl whose heart gets hotter when night comes
A girl with that kind of twist
I’m a guy
A guy who is as warm as you during the day
A guy who one-shots his coffee before it even cools down
A guy whose heart bursts when night comes
That kind of guy
Beautiful, loveable
Yes you, hey, yes you, hey
Beautiful, loveable
Yes you, hey, yes you, hey
Now let’s go until the end
Oppa is Gangnam style, Gangnam style
Oppa is Gangnam style, Gangnam style
Oppa is Gangnam style
Eh- Sexy Lady, Oppa is Gangnam style
Eh- Sexy Lady oh oh oh oh
A girl who looks quiet but plays when she plays
A girl who puts her hair down when the right time comes
A girl who covers herself but is more sexy than a girl who bares it all
A sensable girl like that
I’m a guy
A guy who seems calm but plays when he plays
A guy who goes completely crazy when the right time comes
A guy who has bulging ideas rather than muscles
That kind of guy
Beautiful, loveable
Yes you, hey, yes you, hey
Beautiful, loveable
Yes you, hey, yes you, hey
Now let’s go until the end
Oppa is Gangnam style, Gangnam style
Oppa is Gangnam style, Gangnam style
Oppa is Gangnam style
Eh- Sexy Lady, Oppa is Gangnam style
Eh- Sexy Lady oh oh oh oh
On top of the running man is the flying man, baby baby
I’m a man who knows a thing or two
On top of the running man is the flying man, baby baby
I’m a man who knows a thing or two
You know what I’m saying
Oppa is Gangnam style
Eh- Sexy Lady, Oppa is Gangnam style
Eh- Sexy Lady oh oh oh oh


Oppan gang-namseutayil
Naje-neun ttasaroun inkanjeo-gin yeoja
Keopi hanjanye yeoyureuraneun pumkyeok i-nneun yeoja
Bami omyeon shimjangi tteugeowojineun yeoja
Keureon banjeon i-nneun yeoja
Naneun sana-i
Naje-neun neomankeum ttasaroun geureon sana-i
Keopi shikgido jeone wonsyas ttaerineun sana-i
Bami omyeon shimjangi teojyeobeorineun sana-i
Keureon sana-i
Areumdawo sarangseureowo
Keurae neo hey keurae baro neo hey
Areumdawo sarangseureowo
Keurae neo hey keurae baro neo hey
Chigeumbu-teo kal dekkaji kabol-kka
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Eh- sexy lady
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Eh- sexy lady
Jeongsu-khae boijiman nol ttaen noneun yeoja
Ittaeda shipeumyeon mukkeot-deon meori puneun yeoja
Karyeot-jiman wen-manhan nochulboda yahan yeoja
Keureon gamkakjeo-gin yeoja
Naneun sana-i
Jeomjanha boijiman nol ttaen noneun sana-i
Ttae-ga dwehmyeon wahnjeon michyeobeorineun sana-i
Keunyukboda sasangi ul-tungbul-tung-han sana-i
Keureon sana-i
Areumdawo sarangseureowo
Keurae neo hey keurae baro neo hey
Areumdawo sarangseureowo
Keurae neo hey keurae baro neo hey
Chigeumbu-teo kal dekkaji kabol-kka
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Eh- sexy lady
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Eh- sexy lady
Ttwiineun nom keu wiie naneun nom
Baby baby
Naneun mwol jom aneun nom
Ttwiineun nom keu wiie naneun nom
Baby baby
Naneun mwol jom aneun nom
You know what i’m saying
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Eh- sexy lady
Oppan gang-namseutayil
Eh- sexy lady
Oppan gang-namseutayil

World War II continues apace...

Dozens of rare British Spitfire fighter planes buried in Myanmar during World War II are to be dug up

More examples of the second best looking fighter plane ever [The P-38 Lightning, obviously.] can't be a bad thing. Let's hope they all fly again soon.

From AFP News via Yahoo! Malaysia News:

WWII-era Spitfires to be excavated in Myanmar

 That's Burma, kiddies.

Dozens of rare British Spitfire fighter planes buried in Myanmar during World War II are to be dug up under an agreement between the government and an aviation enthusiast.

The iconic single-seat aircraft are believed to have been hidden -- unassembled in crates -- by the former colonial power to prevent them falling into Japanese hands almost seven decades ago.

There could be as many as 140 of the aircraft buried in the country formerly known as Burma, according to a local geophysicist who has been involved in the search since 1999.

"In the first year, we will dig up 60 aircraft," Soe Thein told AFP, adding that work to retrieve them would start next month. "The next year in the second phase, I expect to dig up another 50."

Based on a survey of hundreds of witnesses, the team plans to dig in various locations including in Yangon, northern Kachin state and central Mandalay.

If successfully excavated, some of the Spitfires are expected to be returned to Britain, which ruled Myanmar until independence in 1948 but was temporarily forced out of much of the country in 1942 by invading Japanese forces.

"We want to strengthen relations between Britain and our country and benefit millions of people in the world who want to see Spitfires," said local businessman Htoo Htoo Zaw who is involved in the project.

The project is the result of more than a decade of searching former airforce bases in Myanmar by British farmer and aviation aficionado David Cundall using radar technology.

"I'm only a small farmer, I'm not a multi-millionaire and it has been a struggle. It took me more than 15 years but I finally found them," Cundall told British newspaper The Daily Telegraph earlier this year.

"Spitfires are beautiful aeroplanes and should not be rotting away in a foreign land. They saved our neck in the Battle of Britain and they should be preserved," he added.

"They were just buried there in transport crates," Cundall said. "They were waxed, wrapped in greased paper and their joints tarred. They will be in near perfect condition."

About 20,000 Spitfires were built by Britain from 1938-1948. The planes captured the public imagination during the Battle of Britain when the Royal Air Force prevented the German Luftwaffe from invading in 1940.

Today just a few dozen are still in flying condition.

An agreement on retrieving the historic planes was signed by a transport ministry senior official with Cundall and Htoo Htoo Zaw in the capital Naypyidaw on Tuesday.

The British government welcomed the agreement, which follows the personal intervention of Prime Minister David Cameron, who discussed the Spitfires with President Thein Sein during his visit to Myanmar earlier this year.

The signing "marks an important step towards uncovering, restoring and displaying these fighter planes, and perhaps even seeing some of the aircraft gracing the skies of Britain in the future," an embassy spokesperson said.

According to the agreement, the Myanmar government will own half of the airplanes while Cundall will take 30 percent and Htoo Htoo Zaw's company Shwe Taung Por the remaining 20 percent, Soe Thein said.

"We don't have to give the planes to the Myanmar government but will calculate the total value of the planes and give them cash. We'll still need to give a plane to the government to keep in a museum," he added.

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket

Yet another reason to vote for FREEDOM instead of COMMIE SLAVERY.

New American Energy Opportunity Foundation 

When it comes to energy, NAEOF asks ‘what’s to debate?’ It’s obvious that President Obama’s restrictive energy policies have raised the price of gasoline and killed jobs...

Here are some facts about the Obama administration’s restrictive energy policies:
  1. New leases for energy development on federal land are down 50% from Presidents Clinton and Bush;
  2. Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada was halted, despite estimates from Obama’s own state department that it would create more than 5,000 new jobs;
  3. The offshore drilling moratorium was effectively reinstated, overruling bipartisan action by a Republican president and Democratic congress to let it expire;
  4. Land available for energy development in the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has been cut in half (over the objections of the Governor of Alaska and the Alaska delegation);
  5. Moratoriums and permitting delays in the Gulf of Mexico have reduced oil production there by 22%;
  6. Leases for the development of oil shale were suddenly withdrawn because the seven year environmental review process that preceded the sales was said to be “rushed.”
  7. New restrictions on the use of hydraulic fracturing were issued by the federal government despite Obama’s own EPA finding no evidence of pollution from the use of hydraulic fracturing.
  8. The Obama EPA has claimed the authority to regulated greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, setting the stage for massive new layers of restrictions on domestic energy development;
  9. The administration is proposing new tax increases on domestic oil production which will overwhelmingly target small businesses in the energy industry;


IMPEACH THE MUTHA! PART 1: The coverup is destroyed.

It could be the jug-eared commie creep and his fellow blood-soaked ghouls are merely covering up their incompetence...but I believe they are covering up their communism.

From McClatchy:

U.S. description of Benghazi attacks, at first cautious, changed after 3 days

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html#storylink=cpy

In the first 48 hours after the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Libya, senior Obama administration officials strongly alluded to a terrorist assault and repeatedly declined to link it to an anti-Muslim video that drew protests elsewhere in the region, transcripts of briefings show. 


The administration’s initial accounts, however, changed dramatically in the following days, according to a review of briefing transcripts and administration statements, with a new narrative emerging Sept. 16 when U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice asserted in a series of TV appearances that the best information available indicated that the attack had spun off from a protest over the video.

What prompted that pivot remains a mystery amid a closely contested presidential election and Republican allegations that President Barack Obama intentionally used outrage over the video to mask administration policy missteps that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. The issue is sure to arise when Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney meet Monday to debate foreign policy. 

Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it’s natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered. “You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve,” he said.

But the administration’s statements offer an ironic twist on the “fog-of-war” phenomenon: They apparently were more accurate on the day after the attacks than they were when Rice made her TV appearances four days later. Administration officials so far have provided no detailed explanation for the change.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment for this report beyond saying that, "These issues have been covered in countless comments by the president and briefings."

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner declined to address specifics. "An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters," he said in an email.

On the day after the attack, transcripts show, senior administration officials, briefing reporters, declined in response to three direct questions to link the Benghazi assaults to protests over the video. One senior official told reporters during the briefing that “unidentified Libyan extremists” launched what was “clearly a complex attack.” The official isn’t named because such briefings typically come on the condition of anonymity.

At campaign stops in Colorado and Nevada the next day, Sept. 13, Obama referred to the Benghazi assault as “an act of terror.” At the State Department press briefing that day, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked directly and repeatedly whether there was a link between the video protests and the attack on the U.S. consulate.

While she mentioned that commentary on social media was making the link “to this reprehensible video,” Nuland emphasized several times that there wasn’t enough information for officials to make that leap, even though some news reports, including those of The New York Times and Agence France Presse, were citing unnamed witnesses in Libya who said that anger over the video was the reason the consulate was targeted.

“We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans,” Nuland said.

That evening, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over a State Department reception marking an Islamic holiday; her remarks made no mention of a protest and made only passing reference to reports that listed “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” as a possible motive.

One of the speakers, Ali Suleiman Aujali, the Libyan ambassador to the United States, told Clinton and the other attendees in no uncertain terms that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

“I hope that this sad incident which happened, this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya, it will tell us how much we have to work closely,” Aujali said, according to the official transcript. 

The story, however, began to change the next day, Sept. 14.

With images of besieged U.S. missions in the Middle East still leading the evening news, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney became the first official to back away from the earlier declaration that the Benghazi assault was a “complex attack” by extremists. Instead, Carney told reporters, authorities “have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” He added that there was no reason to think that the Benghazi attack wasn’t related to the video, given that the clip had sparked protests in many Muslim cities.

“The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive,” Carney said. 

When pressed by reporters who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was preplanned, Carney said that “news reports” had speculated about the motive. He noted again that “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”

Carney then launched into remarks that read like talking points in defense of the U.S. decision to intervene in last year’s uprising against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: that post-Gadhafi Libya, he said, is “one of the more pro-American countries in the region,” that it’s led by a new government “that has just come out of a revolution,” and that the lack of security capabilities there “is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.”

By that Sunday, Sept. 16, the evolution of the narrative was complete when Rice, the U.N. 
ambassador, showed up on all five major morning talk shows to make the most direct public connection yet between the Benghazi assault and the incendiary video.
While she couched her remarks in caveats – “based on the information we have at present,” for example – Rice clearly intended to make the link before a large American audience.

According to the then-current assessment, Rice told ABC’s “This Week,” the attack was “a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo” – a reference to a demonstration triggered by the anti-Muslim video in which hundreds breached the U.S. Embassy compound there and tore down the American flag. Rice repeated the claim throughout her talk-show appearances and later blamed intelligence services for giving her incorrect information before she went on air.

The next day, Nuland faced pointed questions about Rice’s remarks from the State Department press corps, which noted that even the Libyan president was describing the events as a coordinated terrorist operation. Fielding a barrage of questions from reporters trying to pin down the administration’s position in light of the divergent statements, Nuland defended Rice’s remarks with a repeated line about the ambassador’s statements accurately reflecting “our government’s initial assessment.”

On Sept. 19, as the video story began to collapse amid news reports from Libya and intelligence leaks from Washington that pointed to a premeditated attack, the administration’s story underwent yet another alteration in what seems to be an effort to reconcile the dueling narratives. 

At a congressional hearing, Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, offered testimony that wove together both versions. He called it a “terrorist attack,” but also deemed it an “opportunistic attack.” He made no specific mention of a preceding demonstration over the video – witnesses interviewed by McClatchy for stories on Sept. 12 and 13 had said there was no protest – but did say that the violence “evolved and escalated over several hours.”

“What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack,” Olsen testified.

Under intense pressure from Republican critics over the handling of the Benghazi aftermath, the Obama administration finally came full circle on Sept. 20, returning to what Libyan and U.S. officials had said at the very beginning: the attack on the Benghazi consulate was separate from the region’s video protests and bore the hallmarks of a terrorist attack.

Carney, the White House spokesman who’d only days earlier tied the incident to the video, told reporters it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” He cited Olsen’s testimony that pointed to the involvement of militant groups operating in eastern Libya, “including possible participation by elements of al Qaida,” especially its North African branch.

In the next week, as the Republican-led political storm over the administration’s shifting accounts grew, the office of the nation’s top intelligence official announced that as a result of new information, it had determined that the consulate had been hit by a "deliberate and organized attack," and that it was responsible for the narrative that the assault began “spontaneously."

Yet the statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to clear up how the administration came up with its assertion that the attack was launched during a protest against the video. Issued by a spokesman and not Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself, the statement made no reference to a protest or the video.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/18/171933/obama-administration-officials.html#storylink=cpy

more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Tales Of Maked Men on PBS.

Finally, we get something worthwhile fro the millions of stolen tax dollars sunk into PBS. Of course, they didn't make this film. They just aired it.

If you don't get Lucha Libre, I don't care. You should.

Watch Tales of Masked Men on PBS. See more from VOCES.

Fyodor's Band Of The Day: The Amish Outlaws!

Straight Outta Lancaster... The Amish Outlaws!

They remind me of a little band from long ago and far way that simply loved to play...

This is what rock 'n' roll should be - a bunch of guys having fun playing anything and everything they like. Forget the schtick, just enjoy the tunes.

Click each name to learn about the Brother, or read below for our full story.
Brother Amos Def - keyboards, guitar, banjo, vocals
Brother Big Daddy Abel - lead vocals, guitar
Brother Eazy Ezekiel - bass, vocals
Brother Hezekiah X - lead vocals
Brother Ishmael L Cool J - guitar
Brother Jakob the Pipe Layer - drums

It is a little-known fact that most Amish  practice a tradition, similar to the Christian "Confirmation" and Jewish "Bar Mitzvah," called "Rumspringa" (literal translation: "running around") in which Amish children at the age of 16 have an opportunity to live free of the strict Amish code of conduct before deciding if they want to come back and be baptized into the Amish church. Surprisingly, virtually all of the youths return.

But sometimes they don't.

Four out of the original six of the members of The Amish Outlaws were born and raised in Lancaster, PA and had a strict Amish upbringing. No electricity from land lines, no alcohol, no musical instruments, but their spirits were too wild for the Amish lifestyle. Once they trampled in the Devil's Playground, there was no turning back. In the years since Rumspringa, the members of the Amish Outlaws have become very well acclimated to the pleasures and vices of the modern world...  music, most of all.

It was this mutual love of music that brought the Outlaws together in a chance meeting at the 2002 Pocono Vacation Park "Rock and Roll Hootenanny." Brother Hezekiah and Brother McMullen showed up at the event still in traditional Amish garb. As the most recent defectors, they were still very much living the lives of "Plain People." While their appearance drew snickers and stares from most of the crowd, Brother Ezekiel, who was attending the Hootenanny with Brother Amos, immediately recognized Brothers Hezekiah and McMullen as the "real deal" and invited them to sit down. Needless to say, the Brothers were soon like brothers, sharing not only the bond of having left the Amish life behind, but also the deep mutual love of music, and together they delved deeply into the 16 years of American culture they missed, watching endless hours of classic MTV, listening to the radio, CDs, records, tapes... anything they could get their hands on. But just listening and watching was not enough...  the Brothers soon decided to form a band that combined their love of the modern world and their traditional upbringing. They met Brothers Jakob and Ishmael (both “English" as we call the non-Amish), making them “honorary Amish" when the two joined the band. Thus, with a bold lust for life and a fire for music and performance that can only come from 16 years of repression, The Amish Outlaws were unleashed upon the world.
In 2007, Brother Big Daddy Abel joined The Amish Outlaws on lead vocals and guitar. A brother and friend to us all!
There is no "typical" Amish Outlaws show, but the average crowd can expect to see men in full Amish garb releasing all of their pent up energy with an infectious joy. With a set that is always evolving as the Brothers discover more and more music and culture, The Amish Outlaws constantly surprise the audience and keep them guessing as to what they could possibly play next, from Johnny Cash to Jay Z, Lady Gaga to Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre, Bon Jovi to Elvis Presley, The Foo Fighters to Dropkick Murphys, to theme songs from the TV shows they have come to know. Throughout, The Outlaws spin yarns about the Brothers' upbringing and adventures since Rumpsringa. Amish Outlaw gigs are less performances than they are initiations into the life of an Amish Outlaw and parties celebrating the Brothers' newfound freedom.

For more info on Rumpsringa, read the research paper Brother Eazy Ezekiel was interviewed for.

To book the Amish Outlaws, click here.  Click here to join our mailing list and stay updated on our shows.


Jonah Goldberg is a better Catholic than Joe Biden.

He has a better chance of avoiding Hell, as well.

From National Review Online:
Red, Blue, and Faithful

Apparently, Paul Ryan and Joe Biden are both theocrats willing, nay eager, to use state power to impose their religious views on the rest of us.

In last week’s vice-presidential debate, moderator Martha Raddatz asked the two Roman Catholic politicians “to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.”

“I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith,” confessed Ryan. “Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.” But he went on to make it clear that his views on abortion are based as much on “reason and science” as they are on his Catholicism.

Then it was Biden’s turn. He stopped laughing long enough to explain: “My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. . . . [Catholicism] has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves.”

 Biden says he personally accepts his Church’s “de fide doctrine” that “life begins at conception. . . . I accept that in my personal life.” But he refuses to impose it on others who don’t share his faith. Unfortunately, given his pious bravado, Biden badly garbled Church teaching: Catholic opposition to abortion isn’t in fact theological dogma (de fide) but a scientific and moral conclusion, much as Ryan suggested.

Reaction to the exchange has been predictable. Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker, for instance, was outraged — at Ryan. To say that faith informs everything you do is “disturbing and scary,” Gopnik insisted. “That’s a shocking answer — a mullah’s answer, what those scary Iranian ‘Ayatollahs’ he kept referring to when talking about Iran would say as well.”

By that standard, Gopnik must consider the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln mullah-like too.


And Biden. Biden freely admits that his faith informs his “social doctrine.” And social doctrine is a euphemism for political worldview. It’s just that on abortion, his liberalism is more important.


Indeed, this has been the standard liberal-Catholic-Democrat argument ever since Mario Cuomo’s 1984 address at the University of Notre Dame. Cuomo argued that one could support the Church’s abortion position personally while refusing to impose it on others. Cuomo’s argument impressed secular liberals but not the Church itself.

I smell brimstone...

In 2004, Catholic Democratic senator John Kerry declared in a presidential debate that his faith was “why I fight against poverty. That’s why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.”

One of Ayatollah Kerry’s favorite rhetorical flourishes was to note that a Christian must “demonstrate faith with deeds” — and the deeds Kerry had in mind were the liberal policies he always supported. Abortion, of course, was the one great exception to his effort to impose his faith on other Americans.


Let’s be clear: Anti-poverty programs, environmental regulations, and tax increases are impositions too. Refuse to abide by any of them and the government will either force you to comply or put you in jail. If your Catholic (or Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or pagan) faith drives you to pass regulations that shut down a coal mine, you’ll have imposed a lot of people right out of a job.

I strongly doubt that Gopnik and the rest of the faith-fearing liberals mind when progressive figures insist their policies are motivated by religion. President Obama routinely waxes biblical in his view of government: “I am my brother’s keeper,” he has said repeatedly. It is, to be sure, an odd recasting of the Bible, since Cain’s question to God — “Am I my brother’s keeper?” — was simply an attempt to dodge a murder rap. But he is invoking his faith nonetheless. And Nancy Pelosi says her Catholic faith “compels” her to support gay marriage. Really.

What's a Gopnik? Its neck while shaving. [Don't blame me. He works for the Old Gray Whore and there's nothing funny there.]

It might be that secular liberals aren’t offended by all this because they think Catholic Democrats are simply lying. That’s probably true in some cases, but it’s surely unfair in others. Biden seems sincere when he says he’s a faithful liberal Catholic. And that’s forgivable so long as he remembers that the “liberal” comes first in “liberal Catholic.”

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of The Tyranny of Clichés.

Wednesday October 17, 2012 at National Review looks like this...


 ...or, Live by the poll, die by the poll.


Which is more likely, kiddies?

1. Tens of millions of Americans just changed their minds on a dime?

2. Polling isn't "scientific"?

3. The AmericaLast media and their establishment enablers tried to suppress Romnoid voters by proclaiming Benito Whossane Insaner the winner for months, but now have to report Americans' real opinions in order not to have "scientific" polling discredited by a Mittens victory?

 [Hint: 3!]

Is President Obama really behind by five points in the swing states?

A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows Mitt Romney with a sizable lead. Malarkey, insists the Obama campaign
- The Week via Yahoo! News

Go ahead and read it all, you Armstrongians, I dare you!

 Why do people fanatically defend this liar and cheat despite this overwhelming evidence? Money? Power? Politics? Perversion? I don't care. This case is closed.

Appendix A (Affidavits)


Frankie Andreu

Michael Barry

Leonardo Bertagnolli

Volodymyr Bileka

Tom Danielson

Tyler Hamilton

George Hincapie

Jörg Jaksche

Floyd Landis

Levi Leipheimer

Filippo Simeoni

Stephen Swart

Christian Vande Velde

Jonathan Vaughters

David Zabriskie

Other Witnesses

Betsy Andreu

Piero Boccarossa

Larry Bowers

Marco Consonni

Renzo Ferrante

Emma O’Reilly

Dawn Polay

Jack Robertson

Paul Scott

Lory Testasecca

Jean-Pierre Verdy

Appendix B (Videos)

Appendix C (Correspondence between USADA & Armstrong or their legal representatives)

2012-06-02 09-51 Herman to WB re USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-02 10-28 WB to Herman Re USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-02 10-58 WB to Herman re USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-04 15-03 Herman to WB re USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-04 20-00 WB to Herman Re USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-04 21-42 Herman to WB re. USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-04 21-44 WB to Herman Re USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-04 WB to Herman re. USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-05 09-50 WB to Herman Re USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-05 10-37 Herman to WB re. USADA Matter.pdf
2012-06-08 Luskin to WB re. LA.pdf
2012-06-12 AFLD Notice Letter.pdf
2012-06-13 Luskin to WB re. ADRB.pdf
2012-06-15 Luskin to ADRB re. LA.pdf
2012-06-15 Luskin to WB re. LA.pdf
2012-06-15 WB to Luskin re. June 8 and 13 Letters.pdf
2012-06-16 Luskin to WB re. response to correspondence.pdf
2012-06-18 WB to Luskin re. ADRB.pdf
2012-06-22 Luskin to ADRB re. Armstrong.pdf
2012-06-26 14-44 McCumber to Resps. Re ADRB and USADAs June 12, 2012 Notice Letter.pdf
2012-06-26 Luskin to ADRB re. Armstrong.pdf
2012-06-27 12-12 Patrick to McCumber re. Lance Armstrong.pdf
2012-06-27 Luskin to ADRB re. Armstrong.pdf
2012-06-28 LM to Luskin re Charging Letter - Armstrong.pdf
2012-06-29 WB to Luskin re. USADA ADRB.pdf
2012-07-05 Luskin to WB re. extension for Armstrong.pdf
2012-07-09 09-38 Wilson to WB re. Lance Armstrong v. USADA.pdf
2012-07-09 16-15 Herman to WB re. agreement.pdf
2012-07-09 16-41 Herman to WB re. amended complaint.pdf
2012-07-09 Herman to WB re conversation.pdf
2012-07-09 Herman to WB re. complaint and TRO.pdf
2012-07-09 Herman to WB re. federal lawsuit.pdf
2012-07-09 WB to Herman re Armstrong v USADA.pdf
2012-07-10 16-41 Herman to WB re. agreed extension.pdf
2012-07-10 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA.pdf
2012-07-11 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA.pdf
2012-07-12 16-09 Herman to WB re. extension.pdf
2012-07-12 Herman to WB re. Rule 26 conference.pdf
2012-07-13 11-51 Herman to WB re. Armstrong v. USADA.pdf
2012-07-13 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA.pdf
2012-07-18 Herman to WB re. Rule 26 conference (dated 07-12-2012).pdf
2012-07-20 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA.pdf
2012-07-23 Herman to WB re. discovery.pdf
2012-07-23 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA - Request to Confer.pdf
2012-07-23 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA - Your 07-23-2012 Ltr..pdf
2012-07-23 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v. USADA - Farrell Aff.pdf
2012-07-24 19-15 Herman to WB re. extension and limited discovery.pdf
2012-07-24 Herman to WB re. Discovery on MTD.pdf
2012-07-24 Herman to WB re. extension and limited discovery.pdf
2012-07-24 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v. USADA - 07-24-2012 Phone Call.pdf
2012-07-25 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v. USADA - discovery on MTD.pdf
2012-07-25 WB to Luskin re. conflict of interest.pdf
2012-07-26_WB_to_Herman_re _Armstrong_v _USADA_-_resp_to_07-23-2012.pdf
2012-07-27 Herman to WB re. confering.pdf
2012-07-27 Herman to WB re. discovery.pdf
2012-07-27 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v. USADA - Defendants Discovery.pdf
2012-07-27 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v. USADA - Discovery.pdf
2012-07-30 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA - Admissibility of Affidavits.pdf
2012-07-30 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA - Discovery.pdf
2012-07-30 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA - Plaintiff Discovery.pdf
2012-07-31 Herman to WB re. Affidavits.pdf
2012-08-01 WB to Herman re. Armstrong v USADA - 08-10-2012 Hearing.pdf
2012-08-02 16-18 WB to Herman re Request for Courtesy Copies of Mr. Armstrongs Filings.pdf
2012-08-02 18-02 Breen to WB RE Request for Courtesy Copies of Mr. Armstrongs Filings.pdf
2012-08-02 18-58 WB to Breen Re Request for Courtesy Copies of Mr. Armstrongs Filings.pdf
2012-08-02 20-02 Breen to WB RE Request for Courtesy Copies of Mr. Armstrongs Filings.pdf
2012-08-03 15-41 Herman to WB re. page length extension.pdf
2012-08-03 16-38 WB to Herman re. USADAs Response to Your Request.pdf
2012-08-06 15-23 Herman to WB re. Second Farrell Affidavit.pdf
2012-08-06 16-21 WB to Herman re. Second Farrell Affidavit.pdf
2012-08-06 18-18 Herman to WB re. Affidavits and Exhibits.pdf
2012-08-06 18-47 Herman to WB re. USADA-USOC contract.pdf
2012-08-07 3-22 Herman to WB re. deadline re. arbitration.pdf
2012-08-07 14-32 WB to Herman re. deadline for Armstrong re. arbitration.pdf
2012-08-07 16-07 Herman to WB re. Farrell Affidavit.pdf
2012-08-17 WB to Luskin and Talisman re conflict of interest.pdf
2012-08-22 13-21 WB to Herman re. deadline to elect arbitration.pdf
2012-08-23 Herman to WB re. LA rejects arbitration.pdf
2012-08-24 WB to Herman and Luskin re. your 2012-08-23 ltr.pdf

Appendix D (UCI Correspondence)

Appendix E (Federal Court Decision)

Appendix F (Rules)







Appendix G (Correspondence re. Initiating Cases)

Appendix H (Armstrong's Licenses with USA Cycling)

Appendix I (Armstong Elects Not To Go To Arbitration)

Appendix J (Excerpts from Books)

Appendix K (Charts)

Appendix L (Operacion Puerto File + Summary)

Appendix M (Frieburg File + Summary)

Appendix N (Kristin's Korner Blog Entries)

Appendix O (1999 TdF DCOR)

Appendix P (Vrijman Report + WADA Response)

Appendix Q (AFLD Documents re. Responses to DOJ Questions)

Appendix R (AFLD Documents re. Declaration of Jean-Pierre Verdy with Attachments)

Appendix S (Tailwind Corporate Documents)

Appendix T (Lance Armstrong's Testing History)

Appendix U (Transcripts of Video and Audio Clips)

Appendix V (Bologna Court Decision on Ferrari)

Appendix W (News Media)

1998-10-01 Winning the Race of his Life.pdf
1999-07-16 CYCLING Questions on Doping Shadow Armstrong.pdf
1999-07-22 Armstrong Is Engulfed by a Frenzy Over Salve.pdf
1999-07-26 PBS.Tour de Lance.pdf
2000-00-00 Armstrong and Pantani maintain their innocence.pdf
2000-07-24 Time.Lance Armstrong - Uphill Racer.pdf
2000-12-18 Armstrong team assures Tour de France champ will return.pdf
2001-07-01 LATimes.Armstrong Aims for thrid tour victory.pdf
2001-07-10 A new drug scandal - Armstrong responds.pdf
2001-07-16 Accused, Armstrong Defends His Honor.pdf
2003-00-00 90th Tour de France - July 5-27, 2003.pdf
2004-06-29 Doping claims absolutely untrue.pdf
2004-07-13 Armstrongs adviser taints Tour efforts.pdf
2010-05-21 Floyd Landis comes clean, accuses Lance Armstrong.pdf
2010-05-21 Lance Armstrongs Team RadioShack attacks Floyd Landis.pdf
2010-05-25 McQuaid confirms Armstrong donated _100,000 to UCI.pdf
2010-07-03 Lance Armstrong attacks zero credibility of latist Floyd Landis allegations.pdf
2010-07-10 McQuaid reveals Armstong made two donations to the UCI.pdf
2011-04-15 Report - Lance Armstrong, doctor met.pdf
2011-05-24 Verbruggen says Armstrong never, never, never doped.pdf
2011-07-09 Belgiums Wauters wins second stage.pdf
2012-06-15 First Edition Cycling News, Friday, June 15, 2012.pdf
2012-06-28 Lance Armstrong case thickens.pdf
2012-06-29 Armstrong legal team says Landis, Hamilton are part of doping case.pdf
2012-09-21 Verbruggen wont take legal action against Hamilton.pdf
Retributions Against Witnesses - Bassons.pdf
2004-06-15 armstrong-comes-out swinging orielly.pdf
Retributions Against Witnesses - Simeoni (2).pdf

Appendix X (US Postal Service Documents re. USPS Cycling Team)

Appendix Y (Armstrong & Tailwind v. SCA Productions)

Hearing Transcripts

Hearing Exhibits

Claimant Exhibits

Respondant Exhibits

Depositions & Exhibits

Lance Armstrong

Mark Gorski

Stephanie McIlvain

William Stapleton

Appendix Z (Miscellaneous)

Appendix AA (Acceptances of Sanctions)

2012-10-09 WB to Anders re. Hincapie Sanction.pdf
2012-10-09 WB to Berke re Barry Sanction.pdf
Acceptance of Sanction. Zabriskie.executed.pdf
Danielson Acceptance of Sanction 2012-09-26.pdf
Leipheimer Acceptance of Sanction.pdf
Vandevelde acceptance of sanction signed.pdf

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.


Blog Archive