Missing: Marizela Perez
Searching for Marizela: An update
Marizela Perez: Still missing
Searching for Marizela: Video surveillance screen shots

Other Malkinites and various media outlets are helping spread the word.
Media:Seattle Times
KOMO radio’s John Carlson and KOMO TV’s Shomari Stone
KING TV
KIRO
Malkinites:
Jeff Setaro
David Boze

Pray pray pray pray pray!

For those who are just emerging from hibernation, I’ll fill you in on current events: A nutjob with leftist tendencies named Jared Lee Loughner recently went on a shooting spree in Arizona. Google his name and that should tell any hibernators anything else they need to know.

Of course, the left wasted no time rushing to blame this tragedy on conservatives. They (and their RINO buddies) called for “civility” in political discourse. They said that using any metaphor or illustration derived from firearms, war, et cetera was now verboten. Of course, they continue to use such metaphors freely and with impunity.

Anyway, my response is escalation (military metaphor). I will not retreat (another military metaphor). Seriously, no reasonable person believes that commonly-used metaphors are responsible for violence. It’s just an attempt to browbeat (violent-sounding phrase) conservatives into sitting down, shutting up, and letting our statist betters control the dialog. Comparisons (similies, metaphors, analogies, et cetera) are highly useful in conveying information. Comparisons derive from familiar things. I use metaphors from sports, the military, firearms, music, art, entertainment, pop culture, science, history, and many other areas.

I will not allow the left to make me be quiet about my conservative beliefs.
I will not allow them to deprive me of useful metaphors, either.

Yes, my fellow trekkies, the title is a reference to Star Trek IV. (That’s the one with the whales, for you heathens.)

Back in 2008, President Obama made the now infamous comment: “…under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

It looks like they can’t wait for cap and trade. They must want electricity rates to skyrocket now. They’ve been doing their best to destroy the oil industry. Now they’ve fired a broadside at the coal industry.

Obama Coal Crackdown Sends Message to Industry
The EPA has revoked the permits for a West Virginia coal mine. obviously, this goes way beyond simply failing to grant new permits.
Even the state’s two Senators (who are both Democrats) are outraged over this. West Virginia’s coal industry is a major part of the state’s economy. Senator Manchin has issued a statement condemning the EPA’s actions as unprecedented and irresponsible. His statement also mocked the EPA.

According to the EPA, it doesn’t matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules. Why? They just change the rules.

A Few Thoughts:

This action will hurt the economy of West Virginia directly through the mining industry and indirectly through energy prices. The economy of West Virginia is already one of the poorest in the nation. Gee, I thought Democrats were supposed to want to help the poor, not hurt them.

This action will hurt the economy of the whole nation through energy prices. West Virginia exports both coal and electricity to other states. Oil prices are still high and growing. Rising energy prices helped cause this Great Recession. Despite all the talk of “recovery,” we are not yet recovered. Another shock could seriously harm the whole economy.

Senator Manchin’s statement described the EPA’s actions as “…a shocking display of overreach…” Overreach, yes. Shocking, no. Democrats, liberals, progressives, envirosocialists, et cetera have been overreaching for a long time. Get in line. You certainly are not the first to notice this Senator. You won’t be the last. My only hope is that he is genuinely outraged and not just posturing. Who knows, maybe he’ll open his eyes a little more and see the ever-increasing overreach that his party so very is guilty of.

Overreach

You call it overreach, I call it tyranny.

But what the EPA doesn’t seem to understand is that this decision has ramifications that reach far beyond coal mining in West Virginia.

I think that they do understand. They just don’t care.

According to the EPA, it doesn’t matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules. Why? They just change the rules.

This is nothing new. They have been doing this to us for a long time.

However, the EPA has never before attempted to veto a previously awarded and active permit.

Precedent does not matter to the statist. They defy precedent all the time with impunity. Then, their unprecedented action becomes the new precedent that all must follow or else. Conservatives are always bound by precedent, progressives never are.

The EPA is jeopardizing thousands of jobs

Nothing new here.

sending a message to every business and industry that the federal government has no intention of honoring past promises and that no investment is safe.

Well, duh. This has been the M.O. of this President and his party since they took power.

That message will destroy not only our jobs, but our way of life

Sounds like “fundamantally transforming” America to me.

The EPA’s decision to retroactively veto the permit casts serious doubt on the future of this project.

Ex post facto law, maybe?

Blakeman says it sends a chilling message to other industries about the power of the Federal government.

Again, I call it tyranny. Tyranny is very often arbitrary, overturning established rules, precedents, agreements, and anything else it desires on a whim. This is the opposite of what a society needs to be stable, free, and prosperous.

He suggests that it will be up to the other two branches of our government , the courts and the Congress to decide whether the EPA’s revocation of this permit , and perhaps others, stands.

This is one of the many reasons why our founders gave us a system of checks and balances. For too long, they Congress has abdicated its authority to various executive branch agancies staffed with unelected bureaucrats. Now would be a great time to defund the EPA.

Mingo Logan Coal Company was poised to invest $250 million dollars in the Spruce Mine project, which would have created approximately 200 well-paying jobs with benefits.

(emphasis mine)
There go the statists again, killing jobs left and right.
These statists are under the delusion that government can and does create jobs, so this will all magically go away when Obama mystically creates jobs with the money from his stash.

Yes, that means, that I am the one who made this LOL.

Capitalist
n 1. A person who is a supporter of capitalism.

– Wikitionary

The term “capitalist” does not just mean “rich industrialist.” It also means “anyone who believes/practices the tenets of capitalism.”

Capitalism
1.(politics, uncountable) a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of an unregulated market.
2.(economics, uncountable) a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of an unregulated market.
3.(countable) a specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.

– Wiktionary (emphasis mine)

Small business owners ARE capitalists.

Besides, many industrialists are not TRUE capitalists. Anyone who has accepted a government bailout or has government assistance in creating a monopoly (whether a total or functional monopoly) for themselves is NOT a capitalist. They are not existing in the free market and are attempting to subvert it through the use of force, in this case government funding or legislative action.

I find myself wondering exactly what he’s trying to accomplish with this. Is he trying to alienate her from her base by trying to represent her as a kook or as someone a conservative or a Christian could not vote for? If so, Mr. Maher clearly doesn’t understand what Christianity is all about. Religiophobes on the left often make the mistake of thinking that the core of the Christian faith is a set of rules: a whole bunch of “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” (mostly the “thou shalt nots”). However, that’s not the core of Chrisitanity. The Christian faith is about redemption.

I Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. It looks pretty dire.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

However, the following verse comes in with redemption:

11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The heart of Christianity is about relationship with Christ and redemption through Christ. If Mr. Maher thinks a shady past, or even a weird past would disqualify someone Biblically, then he should do his homework. The passages above were written by Saul of Tarsus, a Messianic Jew who had formerly sought to eradicate Christianity. Most people call him the Apostle Paul.

As far as the non-Christian Right is concerned, who doesn’t have things they’re not proud of in their past. The important thing is what has she learned from her past and who is she today.

(All Scripture quotations taken from the NIV)

In retrospect, I think they were right. They can’t forget that which they never learned.

On the other hand, I can’t forget. Though the impact on my life was minimal, I still felt like I had been punched in the gut (and I do know what that really feels like). My country was wounded. I doubt any of these pathetic trans-national, post-national, globalist, statist, progressive pigs know what that feels like.

Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung.

from “The Lay of the Last Minstrel”
by Sir Walter Scott

As midnight approached, to bring in the 11th, I felt increasingly somber.

Nine years later, 9/11 still makes me feel like I had the breath knocked out of me. I made it through most of the day fine, but I’m not ashamed to say that I did weep once.

I remember. I will not forget. I can’t forget.

However, I believe that all of them are wrong. President Obama’s religion is Narcissism… his god is self. Barack Obama worships Barack Obama. Now, I’m not the first to point out Mr. Obama’s hyper-inflated ego, but I think this goes far beyond that. The pattern of behavior is clear. He is his own god.

One of the central tenets of Christianity is humility. Certainly, anyone who is capable of enduring the limelight will have the appearance of arrogance, if not actual arrogance. However, I believe that the President’s behavior demonstrates something beyone mere vanity.

I think that Narcissism as a religion is more prevalent than most people would believe. There are many people whose self love goes beyond mere conceit to become the primary virtue in their own eyes. I would assert that many people in this egotistical age view their self-esteem as being one of the greatest things to be pursued. Certainly, egotism has always been among us, but our culture has been pushing self-esteem to an unhealthy extreme for decades now. Children are coddled and insulated from the real world. They are taught that their value comes from their opinion of themselves, rather than from their personhood. It was inevitable that we would have a President who embodied this fault sooner or later. It just happened to be Barack Obama.

I suppose it is possible that he suffers from mere vanity or even Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Certainly, I am not the first to observe that. Many power-hungry politicians and celebrities are narcissistic, at least to some degree. Our media-driven culture sees to that. The unconstitutional growth of government over the past century has also encouraged this phenomenon.

President Obama has refused to release his academic record.
President Obama publically rebuked the Supreme Court in this year’s State of the Union Address, an unprecedented move.
President Obama will single out a specific opponent for attack. In theory, this is not unique to him, but he seems to be doing this with a greater frequency. He seems to be making the attacks personal, rather than based on a disagreement on policy. Also, he has chosen media opponents, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for personal attack.
President Obama repeatedly blames George W. Bush even two years into his Presidency.
President Obama has also repeatedly referred to the deficit that he inherited from Bush while neglecting to mention that he voted for that spending while in the Senate. He also failed to mention that he has added to that deficit as President and doubled our national debt.

President Obama gave 41 speeches from January 1, 2009 to September 23, 2009. In those 41 speeches, he referred to himself 1,198 times. That’s yet another sign that points to his extreme egotism.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/23/dan-gainor-obama-speeches-ego/

The idea of using foreign laws to influence American court decisions has always been repulsive to me. Foreign laws are made by foreign leaders using foreign methods to meet foreign needs. While there are certainly elements common to all humanity, there are also regional variations based on geography, culture, and other factors that cannot allow a cookie-cutter mentality toward shaping laws. This applies within the 50 United States. What works in Maine might not necessarily work in Arizona. It applies even more so from one country to another. Foreign laws are also made by foreign legislatures whose methods might be illegal in the U.S. We are bound by our constitution, not foreign constitutions.

Foreign law might work for foreign countries, but it often goes against our laws, our traditions, our culture, our Constitution, and our liberty. If people want to adopt an idea from another country, let them put it before the Congress, or the state legislatures. Let our legislators study them, debate them, and modify them as necessary to meet our needs. Using foreign ideas to influence American court decisions thus bypassing the people’s elected representatives is a subversion of the sovereignty of the people and is (in my mind) close to treason.

Besides, it just doesn’t fit. The culture, economies, people, traditions, and constitutions of other countries are sufficiently different from ours to render them functionally incompatible. Trying to use foreign law to render court decisions in the U.S. is like trying to play Monopoly using the rules from Risk.

Liberals/progressives/leftists in this country constantly try to get U.S. courts to make decisions based not on U.S. law, but on foreign law. There is, however, one notable exception: anchor babies.

But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see “Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.”)

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.

The article goes on to cite the immigration policies of Sweden (usually a leftist’s dream), Britain, and Canada. Looks like we are the only ones to allow anchor babies. Of course, the left would argue that the 14th Amendment causes that, but the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not require that interpretation.

Anyway, the idea of using foreign laws to influence American court decisions has always been repulsive to me. Foreign laws are made by foreign leaders using foreign methods to meet foreign needs. While there are certainly elements common to all humanity, there are also regional variations based on geography, culture, and other factors that cannot allow a cookie-cutter mentality toward shaping laws. This applies within the 50 United States. What works in Maine might not necessarily work in Arizona. It applies even more so from one country to another. Foreign laws are also made by foreign legislatures whose methods might be illegal in the U.S. We are bound by our constitution, not foreign constitutions.

Foreign law might work for foreign countries, but it often goes against our laws, our traditions, our culture, our Constitution, and our liberty. If people want to adopt an idea from another country, let them put it before the Congress, or the state legislatures. Let our legislators study them, debate them, and modify them as necessary to meet our needs. Using foreign ideas to influence American court decisions thus bypassing the people’s elected representatives is a subversion of the sovereignty of the people and is (in my mind) close to treason.

Besides, it just doesn’t fit. The culture, economies, people, traditions, and constitutions of other countries are sufficiently different from ours to render them functionally incompatible. Trying to use foreign law to render court decisions in the U.S. is like trying to play Monopoly using the rules from Risk.