Hollywood wants to ruin Jurassic Park with 3D makeover in 2013

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. That’s how we feel about the new onslaught of 3D remakes of old movies. From Star Wars Episode I to Titanic 3D, Hollywood just won’t let 3D die. Steven Spielberg is joining the likes of George Lucas and James Cameron in reviving a movie with “eye-popping 3D.” Ugh.

In what is likely a 20th anniversary re-release, Universal Pictures is moving forward to re-release of Jurassic Park in 3D in July 2013.

Why? Because movie theaters can charge more for tickets and give you crappy plastic glasses. That’s why. There’s also all of those new kids that haven’t seen the 1993 original.

Read MORE.


Went shopping this morning after our morning workout at the gym. Yes, groceries still high, and some jumped up a nickel or a dime from last week. Meat department manager told us that it looks like beef and pork will not be going down but going a bit more further up. Why he said there is more space for chicken and turkey. Now, how many meat markets actually have turkey legs, breasts, etc in the case? Turkey usually reserved over in frozen food. And no deals to be had in the coffee aisle! Tea that we buy all the time to make ice tea was 99 cents a box, now up to $1.29 a box. But noticed, though I did not stop and fill up, that gasoline went down 2 whole cents a gallon. Big freaking drop I am sure! Oh, well. came home after spending way too much on groceries (hey, I did not buy any beer, no candy and no chips).

Weather is cloudy, a little bit of rain earlier, but nothing right now, though it is predicted we will get more rain today, tomorrow and possibly friday. With practically no wind and the temperature right now at 65, you better believe I am wearing shorts!


Looks like Captain Francesco Schettino got his license back.


A woman in Liberia who won a Nobel peace prize for her “poetry” has come out with a statement condemning homosexuals.

Amazingly, not a damn word has been heard from the LGBT crowd, the femi-nazis, the UN Human Rights Commission, the NAACP and other assorted shitheads from around the world condemning her for her homopohobia.

Are you surprised?

The Nobel peace prize winner and president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, has defended a law that criminalises homosexual acts, saying: “We like ourselves just the way we are.”

In a joint interview with Tony Blair, who was left looking visibly uncomfortable by her remarks, Sirleaf told the Guardian: “We’ve got certain traditional values in our society that we would like to preserve.”

Liberian legislation classes “voluntary sodomy” as a misdemeanour punishable by up to one year in prison, but two new bills have been proposed that would target homosexuality with much tougher sentences.

Blair, on a visit to Liberia in his capacity as the founder of the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI), a charity that aims to strengthen African governments, refused to comment on Sirleaf’s remarks.

When asked whether good governance and human rights went hand in hand, the British former prime minister said: “I’m not giving you an answer on it.”

“One of the advantages of doing what I do now is I can choose the issues I get into and the issues I don’t. For us, the priorities are around power, roads, jobs delivery,” he said.

Over his 10 years as prime minister, Blair became a champion for the legal equality of gay people, pushing through laws on civil partnerships, lifting a ban on gay people in the armed forces and lowering the age of consent for gay people to 16.

A Catholic convert, he called on the pope to rethink his “entrenched” views and offer equal rights to gay people. But gay rights, he said, were not something he was prepared to get involved in as an adviser to African leaders.

With Sirleaf sitting to his left, Blair refused to give any advice on gay rights reforms. He let out a stifled chuckle after Sirleaf interrupted him to make it clear that Blair and his staff were only allowed to do what she said they could. “AGI Liberia has specific terms of reference … that’s all we require of them,” she said, crossing her arms and leaning back.



Here are the Buffett Rule Numbers -


Back in September of 2011, President Obama first unveiled the “Buffett Rule” which he explained as a measure that would require millionaires and billionaires to “pay their fair share” in order to help reduce the deficit. And in January, he made the Buffett Rule a centerpiece of his State of the Union Address. Obama rebuffed critics who had argued that he was engaging in class warfare, and deemed the Buffett Rule a common sense way to bring down the deficit.

Well, the numbers are in. From Conn Carroll over at the Washington Examiner:

President Obama’s proposed “Buffett rule” tax on Americans earning more than $1 million a year would only raise $31 billion in revenue over 11 years according to new numbers from Congress’ official tax analysts.

To put that $31 billion in perspective, Obama’s budget spends $45.4 trillion over the same time frame and increases the debt by $3.5 trillion.


Damn! I would have loved to see this, but from the FRONT!


More Obama being a freaking dictator!

If ever a reason for a Congressional investigation was needed it is this one.

Most of you here are familiar with Iran-Contra, right? This is worse. Iran-Contra was about taking down a dictator. This is about a dictator trying to take down an ally.

BILLIONAIRE Clive Palmer has made bizarre claims the CIA is backing green groups in a bid to kill the Australian coal mining industry.

And he appeared to suggest that US President Barack Obama was directly briefed on the sabotage.

Mr Palmer called a Brisbane press conference to declare that “an off-shore political power” and the humanitarian organisation the Rockefeller Foundation were behind the attacks on mining.

He said the objective was to make American coal more competitive.

Mr Palmer said no outside country was funding his operations.

“The big difference is that this is funded by the CIA. That’s the big difference,” Mr Palmer told reporters.

“You only have to go back to read the Church report in the 1970s and read the reports to US Congress which sets up the Rockefeller Foundation as a conduit of CIA funding.

“You only have to look at the secret budget that was passed by Congress last year, bigger than our whole national economy, that the CIA’s got to ensure that.

“You only have to read the reports to US Congress, where the CIA reported to the President (Obama), that their role was to ensure US competitive advantage and economic advantage.

“That’s how you know it was funded by the CIA.”

The claims reach the outer limits of conspiracy theories and are certain to embarrass allies of Mr Palmer and severely reduce his political influence.

It is probable that any senior Liberal, including Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, will be reluctant to appear on the same platform as him.


Chicago-style politics if ever you’ve seen it.

This is classic vendetta politics by Obma for the Catholic Church’s refusal to do his bidding.

JPMorgan Chase is shutting down the Vatican’s bank account with its Milan branch due to a “lack of transparency,” according to Reuters.

“The Vatican bank, also known as the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), is having its account phased out and closed by March 30,” Business Insider’s Julia La Roche reports, “because it apparently ‘failed to provide sufficient information on money transfers.’”

Needless to say, this is a setback for the Holy See as it attempts to qualify for Europe’s “white list” of financial institutions that meet all international regulatory standards on money-laundering and tax fraud.

“Italy’s leading financial daily Il Sole 24 Ore reported at the weekend that JP Morgan Chase in Milan had told the IOR of the closing of its account in a letter on Feb. 15,” Philip Pullella and Lisa Jucca of Reuters report. “The letter said the IOR‘s account in Italy’s business capital would gradually be phased out starting on March 16 and closed on March 30.”

Two things should be noted: first, this isn’t the first time the Vatican has been suspected of engaging in financial fraud. Second, something should be said about the timing of the bank’s decision.

As to the first point: The Vatican’s finances have been under scrutiny for some time. Regulators are investigating €1.5 billion that passed through the Vatican’s Milan account. Investigators refer to this account as a “sweeping facility,” which means the account was emptied at the end of each day for an 18-months period and all funds were transferred to another IOR account in Germany, according to Il Sole 24 Ore.

Furthermore, the Vatican is still dealing with negative press it received in September, 2010, when investigators froze €23 million ($33 million) in funds in two Italian banks after opening an investigation into possible money-laundering scheme.


This brings us to our second point, that is, the timing of the bank’s decision. True, the aforementioned concerns over the IOR’s finances have raised some eyebrows, but the Vatican has since responded.

For instance, last year the Vatican formally adopted internal laws to comply with international standards on financial crime and they now comply with the rules of the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), according to Reuters.


Posted just the picture yesterday with nothing about where it came from and who did it. Here is the full truth of that picture….

Provo, Utah (CBSDC) – Jon McNaughton, a controversial artist who often mixes religion and politics in his work, has released a new painting.
In “One Nation Under Socialism,” President Obama holds the U.S. Constitution as it burns.
While McNaughton previously depicted Obama stepping on the nation’s founding document, “One Nation Under Socialism” glowers directly as if challenging the viewer. His right hand is holding the Constitution and his left hand is pointing to the flames.
McNaughton tells CBSDC that the hands “represents his recognition of what is happening (to the Constitution) as it goes up.”
“There are numerous symbols and subtleties in this painting, and I’m not ready to reveal all of them,” McNaughton said.


Either some good time loving rednecks or some employees/owners of a tractor company, either way neat picture and neat way to get to the church on time.


To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.

Finally somebody comes right out and says it: climate + world governance is a match made in green heaven

Skeptics get scoffed at when we say the burdensome regulations that have been and have been sought to be imposed by the alarm over global warming are just a tool to secure a larger governance control. In today’s society, if you control how energy is generated, used, and tax, you pretty much control the modern world. People will do almost anything to keep that computer, iPhone, and electric heat and appliances.

Now in Scientific American, one writer just lays it all out for us to see, pulling no punches.




Taking a daily dose of aspirin lowers the chance of dying from cancer by more than a third, major research shows today.

It reveals that the pills not only reduce the likelihood of contracting the illness, they also protect against it spreading.Oxford scientists say the evidence is so strong that in future the NHS watchdog NICE may issue guidelines telling doctors to prescribe aspirin to cancer sufferers.

In one of a series of studies involving 200,000 patients, the academics found aspirin cut the risk of dying of cancer by 37 per cent if patients took it every day for five years.

Read more:

(yes, been taking my daily aspirin for many years now. Same with my wife.)


As President Obama’s signature health care law comes before the Supreme Court, most of the constitutional commentary has focused on whether Congress has the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance. Relatively little attention has been given to a more complicated and potentially more far-reaching issue: If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, what should it do with the rest of the law?

The Court has scheduled ninety minutes of oral argument for the “severability” issue, and the possible outcomes are legion. The act could be tossed out in its entirety, as held by the trial court; or the remainder of the act could be allowed to stand as is, without the individual mandate, as held in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Court could also take a middle road, stripping the act of some combination of core provisions—probably those focused on health insurance reforms, Medicaid expansion, and the exchange related subsidies—and allowing the rest of the law to stand.

The stakes could hardly be greater: If the Court takes the wrong approach on severability, it could leave the nation with a stripped-down law that did not command, and never could have commanded, congressional support at the time of passage. That judicially constructed law, moreover, could well leave us with an underfunded health care system that could unravel in spectacular fashion, pushing the private health insurance industry to the brink of collapse.

Well-established Supreme Court precedent holds that when one part of a law is held unconstitutional, the remainder is normally upheld if (1) it will be “fully operative” in the way Congress intended1, unless (2) it is evident that Congress would not have enacted the remainder without the invalid part. This two-part test should not be watered down to allow the rest of the law to survive merely because it has some legal effect after severance; courts should not create entirely new laws that Congress never passed and were never presented to the President.

The inquiry should therefore turn on which parts of the ACA operate independently from the mandate and which are interwoven with it. The two lower courts directed woefully little analysis to this decisive question. The trial court held the mandate unconstitutional and struck down the entirety of the ACA along with it. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but reversed on severability, holding that the rest of the Act could function without the mandate. Neither court conducted the thorough analysis of statutory interactions that severability doctrine seems to require for each separate portion of the act.

There’s more HERE