Crumbs

How to solve the illegal alien problems

To solve the illegal alien problems, we should do the following:

• Eliminate the Department of Education (DOE)
• Eliminate ALL entitlement programs for both U.S. citizens and illegal aliens
• Stop illegal immigration
• Eliminate all English as a Second Language (ESL) classes
• Teach only English classes
• Close the borders
• Either assimilate into the American culture or get the Hades out of here.  Love it or leave it.

Slowing legal emigration into California?

All this will do is increase illegal emigration.  Those who would come here legally would then come here illegally.  What we think will alleviate the problem may actually exacerbate the problem.  Instead, what we should do is to stop illegal emigration.

Beware of Sharia Law

If you fellow American citizens don’t wake up, you will someday be decapitated by radical Muslims.  Then, it will be too late. You won’t even be able to be sorry for your stupidity.  We must learn, prepare ourselves, act, and destroy this evil before us and within our midst.  Ignore my warning, and you will regret the day when they take over the world.

Campaign to Defeat Obama

This letter is what we received:

Friends, new polls coming out in Wisconsin show that the Obama-Labor Union ad campaign against him is having an impact… Governor Walker has started losing ground, even though polls had previously shown him winning the “public relations war.”

To help you understand why we’re starting to lose ground, consider this:  using money they confiscate from workers via union dues, the union dues and Obama’s “Organizing for America” have managed to raise and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their TV ad campaign smearing Gov. Scott Walker.

In contrast we have thus far only raised tens of thousands of dollars.  And we only have 20 hours until we place our next round of TV ad buys.  So we have 20 hours to raise as much as we can!

We must do better.  If we lose in Wisconsin then Republican Governors across America will take the lesson that they should give in and capitulate, and all the progress we have seen from the tea party movement will be undone.  If we raise enough money we will win this TV ad war, and Obama and the labor unions will lose – it’s that simple.

This my response:

If we are losing, it is because your ads suck.  Get a better ad agency.  The message is with us.  You should not be losing.  Just throwing more good money after bad money will not win the PR fight.  Get rid of your incompetent ad agency.  There are many good agencies out there.  Now stop asking for more money.  Put the money you currently have to better use.  Idiots!

Your email subject title itself tells it all.  Embarrassing Obama and idiot Michael Moore will not do it.  You must hammer the message home.  We are bankrupting the country into oblivion.  Stop making the fight one of personalities.  It should be a fight over policy.  Idiots!

NPR is a racist, subversive organization

This video is one of the most disgusting I have ever viewed.  These executives of National Public Radio (NPR) are so bias, liberal, progressive, and racist that it just makes me barf.  I resent their reference to the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II.  It was the liberals and particularly FDR who threw my relatives into concentration camps!

NPR should be shut down.  It is not a public radio station.  It is an arm of the Democrat Party!  All government funding should be withdrawn.  These people should be fired.  NPR should be dismantled and eliminated.  They do not dispense news.  They dispense propaganda.  They make me very ill.

I just don’t know why Juan Williams is a liberal Democrat.  They screwed him.  He is one of them for goodness sake!  Juan should grow up and become a conservative like all Black people should.  Constitutional conservatism will free the Blacks and release them from Democrat Party bondage in their virtual plantations.

When does a cyber attack result in a military kinetic response?

When an attacker attacks a power grid, water and fuel pumping stations, etc., a military kinetic response would be unwarranted.  However, a military kinetic response may be warranted for a massive, nationwide cyber attack if it is followed by any one or combination of the following:

• The attacking country formally declares war against the attacked country.
• The attacking country immediately follows the massive, nationwide cyber attack with a military kinetic response.
• The attacking country’s military forces breach our national boundaries.

The attacked country should immediately follow a massive, nationwide attack with a massive counter-cyber-attack retaliation. Then, if any of the above three bulleted items occurs, the attacked country should conduct a military kinetic response.

However, if the attacking country immediately follows a massive, nationwide cyber attack with a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, then a counterattack may be moot if all military electronic assets would be fried and, therefore, rendered inoperable.  The inoperable systems would include all battle management, command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (BMC3ISR), all critical infrastructure and key assets (CI/KA), and all weapon systems.  These would include inoperable communications and surveillance space assets, inoperable fly-by-wire air systems, total stoppage of all air/land/sea transportation systems, all inoperable landline and wireless communication systems, and total stoppage of all financial systems (databases, wire transfer of assets, etc.).  In other words, the nation comes to a standstill without any way of quickly conducting business, providing homeland defense, and counterattacking with a military kinetic response.

Go-ahead, Make My Day– Go on Strike

Cancel pro football.  Cancel the unions.  The players make too much anyway.  The average player salary should be no more than the average medical doctor’s and lawyer’s salaries.  The fan tickets are too expensive.  If the game was canceled for three years and would not go on until the players and owners make half the money they currently do, then they should continue the sport.  The fans should benefit from this action.  The exorbitant salaries the players make and the ridiculous profits the owners make only screws the ticket buyers.  That’s the same with government.  The taxpayers always get screwed in the end.  After we stop pro sports from making so much money, then we go to Hollywood and get them to make half the salaries they make.  The moviegoers are usually screwed with high ticket costs.

Testing of Football Stars

Please read the following interesting March 17, 2011, football article shown on Yahoo.com: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=pfw-20110317_low_wonderlic_scores_ding_elite_nfl_prospects.  Actually, football players should be tested on “life questions.”  Some examples may include the following: how to write a check, how to give change, automobile driver’s test questions, identify top political leaders, solve simple arithmetic problems, and simple word usage, such as, “Is it axe or ask?”  If they cannot answer these kinds of questions and score 30 or higher, then they are a danger to society and shouldn’t even be playing professional football.

You’ve seen a few of those on the gridiron—pure criminals who would just as well kill (punching, kicking, giving a cleat job, biting, gouging eyes, tackling by grabbing the helmet face guard, clipping, late hitting, breaking bones intentionally, piling on, cheating, lying, cussing, etc.) an opposing football player rather than just tackle or block him.  These kinds of players should not be on the gridiron.  They are a detriment to society.

Good Teachers

Schools must recruit better instructors/teachers/educators in both undergraduate and graduate schools. Schools should teach more thoroughly the Three R’s (Readin, Ritin, and Rithmetic) of Education.  Keep politics and political philosophies out of the classroom. Educators need to teach students how to think, reason, and develop logical arguments. They should encourage students to question everything they teach and not beat them down just because they question or disagree with them.

Of all of the hundreds of teachers I have had throughout all of my schooling from grade school up through graduate school, I can count on one hand what I consider as outstanding teachers.  Teachers (including my graduate school mentors) need to care more about the students then they do of themselves.  Most teachers are mediocre and should be sent to “charm school.”  Students remember good teachers for a lifetime.  Good teachers are far and few in-between.

Disaster in Japan

What an inspiration to see no looting going on in Japan as the people struggle to survive and recover from the triple whammy (9.0 earthquake, 30-ft tsunami wave, and high dosages of nuclear radiation) that they are experiencing.  It is great seeing them helping their fellowmen instead of thinking only of self.  May God bless them and quicken their recovery back to normalcy.

When the Big One Hits Southern California

It is true that the lame-stream media has scared the world about the melting down of the nuclear generating stations in Japan.  Japan’s nuclear emergency presents a lesser danger to us in Southern California than does the San Onofré Nuclear Generating (SONG) Station.  However, should we experience a 9.0 (or even a much lesser 8.0) on the Richter scale earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, the SONG Station would present a much greater danger to us than most people would expect.

We would, in most likelihood, experience meltdown of the nuclear rods in that station.  I heard a report that the SONG Station was built with less stringent specifications than the nuclear generating stations in Japan, which is a very sad revelation.  We expect other nations to follow stricter construction specifications than we expect our own country to follow in building nuclear stations.  That is strange, but that is a reality.  Hence, be prepared for the worst when we experience “the big one.”

Be prepared to head east to Ramona and points beyond.  The problem that we would need to deal with is that landslides, fire, large cracks, etc. may block the road between San Marcos and Ramona.  If that should be the case, we would need to find alternate routes to head east.  That would mean going either north on I-15 to I-10 east or south on I-15 to I-8 east.  When we are prepared, we need not fear.

Citations

Regarding the previous piece above, someone made this statement in an email to me: “I noticed you have a PhD, so I would greatly assume that you are very much aware of the need to site your sources…when you say, You ‘Heard’ a report about the SONG, can you please site that source?”

Whether one possesses a PhD or not, if he is writing a peer-reviewed, scholarly document for publication in learned journals, he should “cite,” not “site” credible sources to support his assertions.  I do that in my doctoral dissertation that I am currently writing and have done so in the 17 books that I have written and published thus far.  However, when I write articles on my “Before It’s News” and Blogspot.com blog sites,  I am promoted as a cyber-commentator, which means I give mainly my opinions, comments, thoughts, conclusions, ideas, forecasts, and SWAGs (Scientific Wild Arse Guesses) in these commentary articles.  In such cases, I am not bound to cite sources.  In fact, I am not bound to cite any sources whatsoever in any informal commentary piece I write.  Once one earns the PhD, one is expected to create new knowledge and publish such knowledge at any time.

Since I was just writing an informal email and not writing an article for publication in a learned, scholarly journal, I just stated that I heard a supposed nuclear expert on Fox News make the statement I wrote about.  Therefore, I would greatly appreciate you stating your source for your statement that “I noticed you have a PhD, so I would greatly assume that you are very much aware of the need to site your sources…when you say, You ‘Heard’ a report about the SONG, can you please site that source?”  As far as I know, I am unaware that PhDs (or anyone else—MS, BS, and non-degreed—for that matter) are required to cite sources when they write informal emails saying, they “heard a report.”  I do briefly address the SONG Station in my book titled Combating Terrorists in the USA: Protecting the CONUS from Terrorists.

The 18th book that I am currently writing is titled Those Blasted IEDs! Defeating the Deadly Improvised Explosive Device.  I also will be writing a book next year on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Enhanced Effects (CBRNE) Warfare, where I will cover the nuclear aspects—including the SONG Station.  I include citations, quotations, and references in all of these books.

Another very nice typically liberal person wrote the following:

“Please do not reply to all on this Bob.  I have better things to do than have you get defensive because someone asked for a decent source.  Thank you.

My reply went as follows:

I didn’t think pointing out and correcting fallacious statements made by anyone was getting “defensive.”  I also stated my source in my reply.  Rest assured, I will not write any further comments to anyone in the CERT.  People have their full right to live in ignorance.

I might further point out that I had sent my reply to “all” only because Joe wrote his email to “all.”  People who spread fallacious statements to others cannot go without having those fallacious statements remaining uncorrected.  That is how everyone on distribution could go off half-cocked in the wrong direction.  If Joe had written his email just to me, then I would have answered with my reply written only to him.  When Joe sent his reply to “all,” he should have started his email by saying, “Bob, who made the statement you ‘heard’ about?”  Then, I would have just given my source in my reply without any correction of fallacious statements.

However, he started his reply with “I noticed you have a PhD, so I would greatly assume that you are very much aware of the need to site your sources…when you say, You ‘Heard’ a report about the SONG, can you please site that source?”  You wrote your reply in that same vein, but at least you wrote it only to me, which is what Joe should have done.  I do believe you are attacking the wrong person.  I hope you do not harbor other ulterior motives.

Then, I received this further attack from the unnamed typically liberal person:

Oh for God’s sakes, harboring ulterior motives???  You have got to be kidding.  Honestly Bob.  First of all, yeah, people need to stop hitting the reply all, esp. with these personal comments. But seriously, don’t be paranoid.  Look, we are all looking for answers, REAL answers and good source material is critical right now, not just for US, but for the many people who look to us as CERTs to have answers….Please, end the paranoia. I was asking NOT to be included in personal attacks, and for source material.  The defensiveness is really uncalled for.  We are both professionals, and we are both CERTS. We are SUPPOSED to be working for commong (sic) goals here.

My response follows:

Wow, you are now speaking as a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist!  Are you fully educated on psychology to make such a critical diagnosis?  You still do not seem to get it.  Now, you are sounding defensive and paranoid as you accuse me of being.  See, I can also be a self-appointed psychologist/psychiatrist.  Yes, I did mean harboring ulterior motives.  What is your hidden agenda, anyway?  You ask not to receive personal attacks, but you and Joe started out your replies with personal attacks.  Then, you continue follow-on replies with further personal attacks.

I am not paranoid about anything or anyone, particularly those who start out email replies with such name-calling and finger-pointing personal attacks.  That approach is politics of personal destruction—a blood sport.  Correcting fallacious statements made by Joe, you, or anyone else is being neither defensive nor paranoid.  I wish people like you would not take the approach you have taken from the onset.  That way, we get nowhere.  By taking a non-attacking but respectfully questioning approach, we can, as you say, obtain “REAL answers and good source material” instead of participating in politics of personal destruction.  Perhaps a bit of introspection would improve your communications ability.  Think about it.

###