“Yes we can” as in:

Drill in ANWR? Yes we can.
Drill in the continental shelf? Yes we can.
Build more and new nuclear reactors? Yes we can.
Build new oil refineries? Yes we can.
Cut taxes? Yes we can.
Reduce the size of our government at all levels? Yes we can.
Win the war in Iraq? Yes we can.
Defeat al Qaeda? Yes we can.
Grow the American economy? Yes we can.
Secure our borders? Yes we can.
Enforce our immigration laws? Yes we can.
Preserve the sanctity of marriage? Yes we can.
Protect life, even for babies still in the womb? Yes we can.

I could go on for a couple of pages, but I think you get the idea.

Now we have two candidates for president. One uses the mantra “yes we can” but in direct opposition of the Constitution and what we, as freedom loving Americans, should desire: Barack Obama. When Obama says “yes we can” he is referring to things we should fear, especially when it is diametrically opposed to Liberty and freewill. To all of the items detailed above, Obama says “No we can’t.” and means it. Instead he prefers the following list.

Raise your taxes? Obama says “yes we can.”
Increase the size of government? Obama says “yes we can.”
Turn Iraq over to thugs and terrorists from Iran? Obama says “yes we can.”
Surrender to al Qaeda? Obama says “yes we can.”
Legalize and grant citizenship to criminal illegal aliens? Obama says “yes we can.”
Ban SUVs? Obama says “yes we can.”
Legalize “recreational” drugs? Obama says “yes we can.”
Consider our Federal Agents to be terrorists? Obama says “yes we can.”

Then there is John McCain; he supports many of the same things I do. Obama supports none. With such diametric differences between the candidates, one has to wonder if Obama has actually read the Constitution.

Tags:

Obama Democrat Liberal McCain

From the Globe and Mail:

“I was just shocked at some things in [the] ruling,” Bob Ages, a spokesman for an informal group called Vancouver War Resisters Support Campaign, told reporters outside the courtroom. “It just flies in the face of everything that we and every Canadian know about the reality of what is going on.”

For what it’s worth, I am shocked as well, because I didn’t think they would do it, for the same reasons Ages thinks they should not be deporting the deserter. It also sets the stage for deporting back to the U.S. other deserters.

Mr. Ages said the court misunderstood the situation facing Mr. Long upon his return.

“I do not think there is any doubt someone being up in Canada, and a vocal opponent to the war, will be treated harshly by the American military … there is no question he will be court-martialed and will receive severe punishment.”

Sure, Long should, and hopefully will, be court-martialed; but it will be for desertion not for his criticism of the war. There is a big difference there. As for severe punishment, that’s doubtful. We haven’t shot deserters during a time of war in how many decades? Most likely Long will not get anything more harsh than a couple of years making little rocks out of big rocks and a dishonorable discharge. The more likely scenario is that Long will be administratively separated with a less-than-honorable discharge, which means he will not be carrying the stigma of a felony conviction around.

Hopefully Long’s deportation from Canada will lead the way to the deportation of other deserters who have fled to Canada since the beginning of the Iraq war.

Tags:

Deserter Canada Iraq

“The system isn’t working,” said Obama, “when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids; when nursing mothers are torn from their babies; when children come home from school to find their parents missing; when people are detained without access to legal counsel.” (emphasis added)

What we have here is Obama stating clearly that he believes that ICE agents, men and women who have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, are terrorists. That when ICE makes a sweep of an employment center or community of illegal aliens, this is a terrorist act.

We know that La Raza, which means “The Race” wants full citizenship for illegal aliens. It is clear that Obama is on the same page as La Raza; rewarding criminal behavior with U.S. citizenship and open borders.

Pat Reilly of ICE responds:

“Raids”- a term Reilly said she does not like - are not random, she said, but are operations that are always ordered by a federal judge or federal prosecutor through a warrant.

“Law enforcement is inconvenient for some people who see the world differently than the U.S. legal system does,” Reilly told Cybercast News Service. “They have their own reasons for creating that invective and hurling it against ICE. We enforce the laws Congress has made, and we are not at liberty to change or enforce them differently.”

The last I checked, Obama is a member of Congress (the Senate is one part of Congress, the House is the other); as such, if he thinks the laws that ICE has been charged with enforcing are wrong, what legislation has he put forth to change them? None!

If arresting illegal aliens is considered terrorism, then is the act committed by Alianiss Nunez Morales, the illegal alien that slammed into a bus killing four school children in Cottonwood, MN, must also be terrorism.

It is clear that the only reason Obama is addressing La Raza is to pander to a small, hard-Left, radical organization in order to garner support for his campaign. His accusing ICE of committing terrorist acts goes too far and once again reveals his lack of moral fortitude and Patriotism needed to lead this country.

When it comes to pandering to racist groups, Obama has plenty of company: McCain is also slated to speak to La Raza. However I don’t think McCain will be calling our law enforcement personnel terrorists. As for courting the Hispanic vote, power to you; however there are better ways of doing it than going through La Raza and calling our law enforcement personnel terrorists.

Tags:

Obama La Raza ICE Terrorism

KAG was well represented with elements of most of the Cold Death Quadrant, including the IKV Black Thunder, IKV Rakehell, and the IKV Phantom Cat. The crew of the Rakehell were to be found everywhere, which comes as no surprise as it is the local ship.

Qob, Qe’Pa and Chris put on a panel introducing fans to the Warrior’s Tongue, covering basic pronunciation, grammar, phrases, and resources available for continuing education. All three were involved in last year’s production of A Klingon Christmas Carol. They also touched on the challenges they faced in adapting Dickens to the Klingon culture and getting it right. For those who missed the play, they are going to perform it again this year.

I participated on three panels dealing with films: The influence of the Western on SF; non-SF genre films to see; and whether or not remakes and sequels are a good idea (generally - NO!). Of those panels, I would have to say the non-SF/Fantasy/Horror films people should see was the most successful. Surprisingly I was the only panelist to prepare a list to hand out. (I set it up at 4AM a couple of days before the con.) I have my list posted on my blog, for those interested. There were many films not on my list (that should have been), and a lot of good ideas were thrown out. The idea for the panel was not to talk about the great classics people should see, but films that are considered good films ad are favorites.

Mordok signed up for several Trek related panels, but as they were opposite other commitments, I ended up missing them.

Bridget Landry of NASA’s JPL was one of the Science Guest of Honors. She’s a long time friend, and although I missed her panels this time around, I know what she is capable of. If you know of a convention that needs a Science Guest, put her on your short list as she is the original double threat: science professional and master costumer.

The gust list for Convergence 2008 was extensive as this was their 10th convention and they invited pretty much every guest of honor they have had over the years. They even had many honors for the late Michael Sheard.

Convergence continues to be a huge party convention with three party floors and about 40 parties. Yes, that’s right - 40 parties. The party themes ranged from Trek to gaming to Egyptian, and many others. The Rakehell hosted the IKEA party at the Rutting Tribble. What’s IKEA you ask? Imperial Klingon Excavation Association. Pith helmets, archaeology digs, and Scotch were in abundance.

The interesting thing about the party scene is that the bulk of them are put on by groups (mostly clubs), not other conventions (there are some of those as well). Some of the party rooms are simple in their presentation, while others are far more complex (like the Egyptian party room and the Nokomis rooms). Most fall somewhere in between.

The IKV Rakehell also put on a performance of “Waiting for Kahless”, which was billed as being the lead-in to closing ceremonies.

Convergence still remains a well-run con, despite some growing pains and a few other issues. They do a lot for the community, including a outreach program to one of the local schools that brings in their kids as a field trip for special programs on the first day of the con. This year there were 52 students who spent the day learning about conventions and meeting the guests, including Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca) and Bridget Landry. This was also up from last year’s 34 students. The backing organization is also planning on sending a deserving student to Space Camp, most likely next year.

Attendance this year broke the 3000 mark by quite a margin (over 3100 people)., and the hotel was booked solid and overflowed into two neighboring hotels. The TGI Fridays next to the conventino hotel sold out half of their menu, and that’s after ordering extra to cover the convention. Looks like Convergence was a big success on many counts.

This article is crosss-posted, with photo gallery and videos at the Cold Death Quadrant Website: http://kowabunga.org/kagcdq/index.php?title=Convergence_2008

KAG Klingon Convergence 2008

Why do so many Europeans, in general, learn to speak English? Because it has become a universal language. A common tongue to communicate in, especially where tourism is concerned. Can you imagine what it would be like if there wasn’t a language chosen to be used as a commonly used language? Granted, it didn’t have to be English. It could have been French, or German, or Danish, or any other European language. Why it ended up being English is beyond me. Just the way it worked out. maybe the English Empire had a bit to do with it. Then what about the other countries in the world, outside of Europe?

As for Obama and his statement that Americans need to make sure our children speak Spanish, why Spanish? Why not German, Danish, Chinese, Japanese, or any number of other languages? And should it really be made mandatory? Is this still a free country? Will it remain so with an Obama presidency?

I took two years of Spanish in Junior High School and never used it outside of the classroom. Not in the U.S. I also took a year of German in High School. Same story. It wasn’t until after I joined the Air Force years later and found myself stationed in Spain that I had some need to speak Spanish, and I did learn enough to get by. Far more than being able to say “muchas gracias.”

The fact is, unless you are going to use a language in your day-to-day life, there really isn’t a need to learn it. This is not to say learning a second language isn’t a good idea, but it isn’t necessary, nor should learning any specific foreign language be forced upon our children. It should be up to the individual to decide which, if any, foreign language to study.

The thing with Obama saying it is more important for our children to learn Spanish than it is for immigrants to learn English is, well, unpatriotic. By the way, the drive to make English the official language of America has to do with how our governments conduct business, not how we deal with visitors.

Tags:

Obama Spanish Moonbat

I don’t know what it is like to lose a child under any circumstances, let alone in war. I hope and pray I never have to.

What shocks and disgusts me is the response to those on the hard-Left, and how they respond to one man’s decision to serve in Iraq.

The article from Forth Worth is simple enough. Martinez chose to re-enter the Air force, as a part of the Reserves, after a 17-year break in service. His most recent decision, to volunteer for service in Iraq, is one of the most honorable acts a man can make. From the McClatchy website:

As a condition for her support, he promised his wife, Maria, that he wouldn’t volunteer for a tour in Iraq, that he would only go if ordered. But Martinez broke his promise this year and raised his hand, hating that he broke his word but feeling that he could not honorably serve with people doing more than him.

It was, no doubt a tough decision to make, and breaking a promise made to one’s wife is not done lightly, and I have no doubt that Martinez will continue to receive the love and support of his wife, despite his breaking that promise. I agree with his reasoning, and will pray for his safe return. Martinez is a man of honor and integrity. A Patriot. Especially since in the originating article it states that Martinez opposed the war in Iraq before the death of his son. This makes his choice to serve even more profound.

The shock comes from the first reader comment following the article. it was posted by someone calling himself “lifeofliberty.” Does this fool actually know what a “life of liberty” is? He wrote:

You are apparently a sheep that does not retain any ability to think for yourself and to examine the true reasons why America went to war in Iraq. You think you are disgusted with those that oppose war, how do you suppose we feel about sheep such as yourself that are willing to let a callous and indifferent government send you off to die?

People are entitled to an opinion, but this disrespectful rant goes beyond what his considered acceptable. This Moonbat, who probably never served in the Armed Forces, has no concept of what is at stake. Nowhere in the original article does Martinez state that he is “disgusted with those that oppose war.” I have no problem with people who protest the war, just what they present as “facts,” like exaggerated numbers of those killed in Iraq; or when they spew hatred against the military, calling them war criminals; or making unsubstantiated claims about the lead into the war; or other Moonbatry.

Lifeofliberty continues his rant:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to serve this country or the Constitution if you are engaged in a FOREIGN war. I won’t go into the illegality of this particular American invasion of Iraq (obviously, not the first time), as the war supporters aren’t interested in hearing the facts.

Actually, the U.S. has yet to fight an “illegal” war. Quite frankly, it is those on the hard-Left that do not want to listen to facts. They much prefer to tout the lie of “600,000″ killed in Iraq, and attribute those deaths to the U.S., not to the terrorists. We have engaged in a number of foreign wars, like WW1 and WW2, both of which were declared wars. Is this Moonbat asserting that these foreign wars were unconstitutional?

Further down in his comments he slams SSgt. Martinez personally. Lifeofliberty also claims to be a veteran, but I have my doubts about that, as well.

As a final note, SSgt. Martinez is a man of honor and courage. He may not agree that we should be in Iraq, but he is doing something I have not done: re-enter military service and volunteer for duty in Iraq. Take care and come home safe.

Tags:

Martinez Air Force Iraq lifeofliberty

County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.

Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections “has become a black hole” because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.

Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud “Excuse me!” He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a “white hole.”

That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.

Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term.

Mayfield is right on both cases. As a science term, a black hole is an object that sucks in all matter; nothing can escape a black hole’s gravitational pull - not even light, thus the name black hole. Price, who wanted to refer to it as a “white hole” has clearly made a racial reference. Yes, Virginia, there are theoretical objects called white holes, but they are the polar opposite of a black hole, spewing forth matter. If an analogy of “white hole” were applicable to the central collections office, then they would not be talking about problems in how that office handles paperwork, but would be commending it. The difference between a black hole and a white hole clear as black and white. Or is that racial insensitive now as well. We’ll see.

Price has a lot more to say on FoxNews:

“So if it’s ‘angel food cake,’ it’s white. If it’s ‘devil’s food cake,’ it’s black. If you’re the ‘black sheep of the family,’ then you gotta be bad, you know. ‘White sheep,’ you’re okay. You know?” Price said.

Price said people should watch their words when it comes to stereotypes.

“I think people should always be careful. You know, I’m okay if I’m ‘bartering’ with you. … But if I try to ‘Jew you down,’ Oooooh. Is that racist? I thought it meant the same thing? No, maybe it doesn’t.”

Okay, last line is first. “Jew you down?” What does that mean? If anyone can help me out there, let me know. I’ve never hear that term before. It is clearly a racist term, but what does it mean?

Now to the top. Angel food cake versus devil’s food cake. According to Price, calling a dark chocolate cake, that is rich and yummy, is racist because it is considered “black,” while an angel food cake, which is light, airy, and bland, is also racist as it is “white.” Say what?! Being the “black sheep of the family” is also racist because of the term black and he thinks that to be such is racist? And how about using “white sheep” instead? Now that is racist.

My understanding of the term “black sheep” is that it is someone who breaks with family tradition, like pursuing a career in law when the family tradition is to pursue a career in the sport of fencing (gold star to anyone who can figure out who I am referring to here). VMF-214, the Black Sheep Squadron of World War 2, got their name because they were bad, but not bad as in “naughty” or bad aviators. They were some of the best pilots in the Corps and proved it time and again in combat. They were bad for the enemy. Which is a good thing.

To take Price further, in his worldview is it racist to say that things are as different as night and day because night is “black as night”; scary, dangerous, because many violent crimes, especially muggings, take place at night?

Price is either ignorant of the use of various analogies, a race baiter, or a racist. There are not any choices beyond that.

Tags:

Dallas Price Mayfield Racism Black Hole

The song we are singing is one I wrote with an old buddy from L.A. a lot of years ago. Earl had never heard it before and Tony only heard it for the first time about an hour before this was shot.

I’ll try and get a complete report posted in a day or two.

Tags:

Star Trek Sqotty MacKlingon Convergence Convergence 2008

To Have or Have Not(1944)
Casablanca(1942)
The Big Sleep(1945)
The Maltese Falcon(1941)
We’re No Angels(1955)
The Petrified Forest(1936)
The African Queen (1951)
The Searchers(1956)
Stagecoach(1939)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence(1962)
The Shootist(1976)
Rio Bravo(1959)
She Wore A Yellow Ribbon(1949)
The Wings of Eagles(1957)
True Grit(1969)
The Quiet Man(1952)
The Naked Spur(1953)
Destry Rides Again(1939)
Winchester ’73(1950)
It’s A Wonderful Life(1946)
Harvey(1950)
Man of the West(1958)
The Magnificent Seven(1960)
Three Violent People(1956)
The Long Riders(1980)
High Noon(1952)
The Hallelujah Trail(1965)
Tombstone(1993)
The Buccaneer (1958)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
Spartacus(1960)
The Three and Four Musketeers (1973/4)
The Three Musketeers (1948)
Ben-Hur(1959)
Gone with the Wind(1939)
The Seven Samurai(1954)
Babettte’s Feast(1987)
Life Is Beautiful(1997)
Das Boot(1981)
We Were Soldiers(2002)
The Longest Day(1962)
The Great Escape(1963)
Kelly’s Heroes(1970)
They Were Expendable(1945)
The Dawn Patrol(1938)
Beau Geste (1939)
Men of Honor(200)
From Here to Eternity(1953)
Captain Blood(1935)
The Sea Hawk(1940)
On The Town(1949)
Singing in the Rain(1952)
The Right Stuff(1983)
1776(1972)
The Sound of Music(1965)
The Gold Rush(1925)
The General(1927)
Beach Party(1963)
North Shore (1987)
Snow Dogs(2002)
Eight Below(2006)
Iron Will(1994)
Mickey Mouse Three Musketeers(2004)
The 13th Warrior(1999)
The President’s Analyst(1967)
Death Wish(1974)
The Sand Pebbles(1966)
55 Days in Peking(1963)
Ocean’s Eleven (1960)
Thunderball(1965)
From Russia With Love(1963)
Lassiter(1984)
Our Man Flint(1966)
Top Secret(1984)
Ronin(1998)
Quigley Down Under (1990)
Yellow Sky(1948)
Zulu(1964)

The films cover quite a span, with the earliest being 1925 and 1927, and running up through about 2006. It also covers a lot of non-SF territory: Westerns, War, Detective, Spy, Musicals, and just about everything else. These are all movies - no TV shows or mini-series. Some have suffered the indignity of remakes and some are remakes that were better than the original (The Buccaneer). Feel free to post additions in the comments section. I’d like to see what others would put on their list.

From BreitBart:

“I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged-at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for,” he said before a crowd of a few hundred people at the Truman Memorial Building here. “I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.”

…

Obama said that patriotism “must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice” and sought to distance himself from Clark’s remarks without mentioning them.

First off, no one is challenging Obama’s Patriotism. Wearing a flag lapel pin, as he has recently begun to do, or leading the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance, does not make you a Patriot. Nor does your position on the issues. It’s about sacrifice, something he himself pointed out yesterday when he said, “must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice.” As I wrote in a previous post, the Founding Fathers set the benchmark for what is a patriot when they pledged their live, fortunes, and sacred honor, something Obama has never done. I have. So has McCain, and he paid a very dear price for it. John Kerry, George W. Bush, and most of our presidents have walked the walk. So have millions of Americans since the first shots were fired in 1775, triggering the American Revolution. Obama, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, has not.

As far as raising fears about who he is and what he stands for, he is partially right. What is important about who he is has to do with his judgment and character, since that is what he is running on. For instance he has previously asserted he would meet with various tyrannical dictators without preconditions. That shows a lack of good judgment. His involvement with drugs, however long ago, is also a lack of good judgment. Not to mention is long time affiliation of United Trinity and the many racist and anti-American sermons coming out of that “church.” Where he stands on the issues is also a concern. We all know that he intends to raise taxes astronomically, starting with the Social Security Tax. This will bring about a staggering decline in the economy, possibly brining us closer to a depression than we have been since the Great Depression of 1929.

“For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country-no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary,” Obama said. “And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”

Unfortunately people already are making it a campaign issue, starting with hard-Left Democrat Wesley Clark. But that’s another story.

Of course Obama doesn’t have to worry about having his military service devalued, since he doesn’t have any military service.

I don’t believe that military service is, or should be, a requirement for the Presidency. What I do believe is a requirement is good moral judgment, solid character, virtue, and trust, all qualities that Obama is lacking.

Tags:

Obama McCain Patriotism Service Military

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.

They are incorrect.

The Second Amendment states:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Sometimes it is printed without the commas after “militia” and “arms.” Both versions are accepted as correct.

People have argued for decades about the meaning of those words, some claiming it is a state right while others assert that it is an individual right.

The Founding Fathers were very precise in their choice of words when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the entire Constitution and its several amendments does it mention state rights. The F.F. talk in great length of the powers granted to the Federal Government, or to the several states, and are entrusted to them (governments) by the People, and that the People also have powers that have been retained. Rights belong to the People. This is most notable in the Ix and X Amendments where it states: