This blog consists mostly of common sense responses to happenings (news articles, political events, etc) that just cry out for someone to say "WHOA! Hang on a second, here!" Too many people get away with just inventing their own facts as they bull-rush their way through an argument.

Unless you're dodging a taxicab or sidestepping a falling gargoyle, it's usually wise to take what time is available to evaluate and apply actual common sense. Good, old wisdom. It is, of course, my opinion, but I'll try to show why I think it's factual.
Thomas Paine said, "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." ... but I argue with drunks, egomaniacs, anti-gun Statists, Socialist/Keynesians and climate-fraud peddlers, too.

**PLEASE share this around. I didn't research, consider, write and post this junk just to have it hidden.
And feel free to comment.**

CONTACT SophosArchaeus: eMail at sophosarchaeus@hushmail.com
NOTE: this page does not endorse violence, racism or threats, nor permit such abuse in any direction.
Though Americans are fully able to end a fight, that is a last-resort, defense-only option.
If you're here for such crap, get the hell off my page!]

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Freking Opinion

A prime example of the leftist bias of media is found in May 26th’s “Plumbing for votes” by AP’s Kevin Freking. It is simply a re-hash of tired Progressive falsehoods, yet it sits with actual news rather than on the opinion page. Even the title is a swipe at “Joe the plumber”. Amusingly, he pretends to offer advice to conservatives.

The Freking article says that Sen Boxer’s senate seat is safe because California is “Democratic” and Republicans “lean to the right”. In fact, Boxer’s unfavorable rating has shot up past 51%. Either Republican (a third is climbing) could beat her today, and are rising daily in polls.

The Freking opinion is that “mainstream” is where the people want more taxing and spending, and he wants conservatives to “moderate” to the left. He imagines that voters like having laws rammed down their throats, their health care nationalized and their debt quadrupled. He mentions Independents, but ignores their mounting anger at being deceived by false promises from the entire liberal block. As in recent elections nationwide, “conservative” carries the day better than “Republican” does. “Incumbent” and Progressive “Democrat” are a toxic mix. It becomes radioactive when “Obama endorsement” is thrown in.

Freking misquotes and misrepresents Whitman and Campbell too often to list here. He parrots others’ ignorant, “I haven’t read it” lies about Arizona’s mild and fair SB 1070. He actually cites an assistant professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, for strategy that Republicans should follow. Predictably, Professor Cook (the sort that gave us Pelosi, Boxer, Waxman, Waters and other Progressive disgraces) declares that it’s a Party agenda issue, rather than a conservative, fiscal responsibility concern. All that the people of California and the United States need to re-take control of their government is to support the best conservative candidate. Remember in November; talk about it and don’t stay home.

Freking cites “Republican” Schwarzenegger’s opinion as the voice of conservatism. He says Arnold’s election was due to “talking about ‘post partisan’ politics”. In fact, Schwarzenegger was elected in the recall of reckless Progressive spender Gray Davis, who was almost as bad as Jerry Brown. Schwarzenegger’s platform was almost entirely to slash the size and cost of government, it’s wasteful programs and ruinous taxes. He held up for a few months, then gave up the fight against the Democrat’s majority in Sacramento and literally embraced Obama. Waste, welfare and taxes are flourishing, and Arnold is officially a “RINO”.

News should be fact-checked and unbiased, even if it can’t all be fair and balanced. Freking opinions should be limited to the editorial page.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010


On what was supposed to be the celebration of success for hundreds of college graduates, tenured Socialist Sandra Soto calls for "debate" and proceeds to harangue those who do not want to hear what they know to be untrue and unjust. She gets every aspect of SB1070 wrong, which we must assume is intentional (i.e. a lie), as no "teacher" would 'profess' without studying the material, right?:

Notice that, as the offensive, inappropriate, untrue and divisive rant goes on, the Dean of the college calls for "civil discourse" from those being lashed with hate speech!
...that's why he's get'n the big bucks!

The title is tricky, but the video speaks for itself...


Monday, May 24, 2010

Citizen, where are your loyalties?

In a May 24th Point of View, a citizen and descendant of immigrants poses the question, “Where do you draw the line?” on immigration. Since “citizen descendant of immigrants” applies to all 330 million citizens of the United States (even the Indians walked here, thousands of years ago), the answer is that, everyone gets to draw their own line, here, as long as it is within the law.

The writer, “C.” tells us that he (or she) is “a proud American” and recognizes that the rule of law (U.S. Constitution, etc) is important. C has been to Mexico and seen the poverty and the dirt floors of the oppressed and deceived Mexican poor. Yet, C says that, “I am one of ‘them,’ one of the millions of children born to immigrants.” That refusal to be just “American”, like every other child of immigrants here, is self-imposed. Mixing in the “melting pot” requires only a couple of things: being here legally and willingness to “melt”. Nobody makes you assimilate.

Mexico’s corrupt governments chose long ago to appease or even conspire with drug and smuggling cartels. They chose to pocket the riches from being an oil exporter and OPEC member, rather than sharing oil revenues as Alaska does with their citizens. They chose to teach their children that the S/W United States is “stolen Mexican land”, ignoring the facts of wars won, treaties signed and the 1848 equivalent of half a billion dollars to purchase the mostly empty and unproductive territory; stolen from the Indians by Spain and Mexico before 1776. If they sold cheaply because Mexico was bankrupt before oil was discovered, or if corrupt leaders pocketed the money, it does not make America’s part in the accords less valid.

C’s father was not a citizen. C declines to state whether dad was an illegal alien or had a visa and was a legitimate “immigrant”. His immigrant mother made him study and become naturalized. If he was here legally and not rewarded for invading the U.S., his citizenship closes that book for every Republican, conservative, Tea Party member, or Minute Man. Yet, C insists on being separate from the other 329,999,999 because of the very thing that makes all Americans the same: “descendant of immigrants”. If C chooses to be conflicted because of the plight of the Mexican poor, then so should Americans of Haitian, Sri Lankan, Chinese, Russian, Cambodian and many other poor origins. So should have Irish and Italian poor a century ago. Just being Roman Catholic was once considered a bar to getting elected, yet John Kennedy was president.

C is troubled by letters to the editor with “venom” about “the ones who take their jobs, who pay no taxes” or “bilk the system”. C pays his taxes. So do I and most readers. Having read many and written several of those letters, I must say that most of the “venom” seems to be reserved for the federal politicians of both parties who have refused to secure our border and especially the Progressive Democrats who openly advocate “immigration reform”. They do not mean restoring America’s sovereignty, but granting amnesty or even throwing open the borders. This would be an insult to the efforts of C’s father and every other immigrant that did it the right way. C says he understands the impact on health care and schools, but ignores the criminal element with their drugs, kidnappings and murders.

C wants to know where one draws the line, begging the question by pointing out that some illegals have lived here for decades “without creating any problems” (other than 1.3 billion in annual costs to Arizona alone) and only wanting better for their families. There is also an assumption here that only Mexicans want better for their kids, and not those poor Haitians, Sri-Lankans, Chinese, Russians, Cambodians, Irish or Italians. The fact is, out of 6 billion souls in the world, 5 billion desperately want to come to the U.S. We can neither accept them all (especially without identification) nor give “dibbies” to those who happen to be nearby. Central and South American “immigrants” get no such special treatment from Mexico.

Where to put C’s line is obvious: where the law puts it. You don’t go into someone’s house or a sovereign nation without permission. Even so, C is “not sure what side” he stands on. Either C is confused by the constant stream of divisive lies and distortions from those on the left or he is among those who profit from it: illegals, S.E.I.U. and Progressives.