Barlowe Discovers Who Hijacked His email & Blog

As it turns out, nobody "hacked" into ol' Barlowe's account. It was a simple matter of Barlowe signing into Google on his work computer and leaving himself signed in while he was absent from said computer. Barlowe has deduced that while he was away from his computer, but still signed into Google, a co-worker (and I use that term loosely) sat down in front of his computer, accessed his Blogger and G-mail accounts, and changed the passwords.

At first Barlowe was shocked when he tried to sign into Google and was informed that his password was wrong. Luckily he had added the mobile phone recovery option, and thus regained control of his account in that manner. Barlowe would not have even been aware of the hijacking, if the imposter had not authored posts for Barlowe's blog in which the imposter had Barlowe "confessing" to be a Librul!

Naturally Barlowe had no idea why his blogging friends Will Hart and dmarks thought Barlowe was a fake identity created by their nemesis Dervish Sanders. This is extremely strange, I thought. Ol' Barlowe never interacted with this Dervish person. Fact is, he appears to have been banned from the blogs of Will Hart and dmarks long before Barlowe showed up.

So why would Dervish target Barlowe? No, it wasn't that Dervish was someone Barlowe works with, but that someone Barlowe works with noticed this Dervish person and how hated it seems he is. That gave said person the idea to pretend to be Dervish and gain control of Barlowe's accounts by "hacking" into them.

Turns out the responsible individual was Dan, the Librul that slacks. This is the loser that Barlowe has been trying to convince the big boss to fire for some time. Barlowe found out who was responsible by going to the IT guy and asking if he could help Barlowe figure out how his account was "hacked".

Long story short, the IT guy finds out it was Dan. Now, this is a serious breach of office protocol. Something for which Dan should be fired immediately. Hopefully the big boss will see it that way when he reads the formal complaint Barlowe has filed against Dan - which includes a written report of the infraction by Ray in IT.

But, I just submitted the complaint, so we'll have to see what the big boss says. In regards to that, I will keep my readers updated. Barlowe is steaming mad and wants Dan gone, but given the fact that nepotism plays a large role in why Dan works at the same firm as Barlowe in the first place... I must admit that Barlowe isn't sure what's going to happen.

TLB #54, BS #5.

Barlowe's Google email & Blog Were Hijacked!

Contrary to false "confessions" and labeling of a pal as a "blog defecator", ol' Barlowe believes none of that asinine baloney. Barlowe was actually quite horrified when he discovered someone other than himself had hacked into his Google account and written posts pretending to be him.

Or, that is the story Barlowe is going with, in any case. Barlowe had a great run with his posts written in a Conservative voice, and Barlowe would like to go back to making fun of agreeing with those who are in the right by being a part of the Right.

The consensus seems to be that someone called "Dervish Sanders" is the offender who pretended to be me. Barlowe contacted the folks at Google to let them know what was going on, and that is how he regained control of his account. But just who hijacked Barlowe's blog could not be determined for certain. Obviously whoever it was is way too smart to get caught. It could have been this "Dervish Sanders", or it could have been someone else.

In any case, even though Barlowe could delete the posts written by this hijacker, he has decided to let them stand. That way, this commentary makes sense. How could Barlowe talk of someone hijacking his account and writing posts pretending to be him if there were no posts? People would say, "WTF are you talking about, Barlowe. I see no such posts".

So, by leaving them I can say... the posts are right there. And give a link. That is what some a-hole wrote while pretending to be ol' Barlowe. Barlowe never "confessed" to jack squat. Barlowe is a Conservative through and through, and will be so to the day he dies.

Whether or not anyone believes ol' Barlowe is another matter entirely, I suppose. But, about that Barlowe also does not give jack squat, as the opinion of others is not something Barlowe spends that much time worrying about. Barlowe is the kind of Maker who lets his hard work and accomplishments speak for themselves. As opposed to some pansy-assed Liberal Taker who whines about it when others point out their deficiencies.

TLB #53, BS #4.

The Offensive Blog Defecator Known As dmarks

With his last post ol' Barlowe dropped a bombshell revelation and promised to "reveal the contents of an email that dmarks sent to Barlowe back when he thought Barlowe was on his side". But, before I get to that, let me say that I have no moral qualms revealing what Mr. Marks told me in confidence. Why? Because Mr. Marks is an unscrupulous liar who bad-mouthed a good friend of mine in this email. This was when dmarks thought ol' Barlowe was a fellow conservative blogger. Who knows how many others dmarks sent similar email communications to?

Barlowe, although he kept quiet at the time, was actually quite upset that dmarks would do something so deplorable; that is, bad-mouthing another blogger in private by attempting to get my friend banned from another blog. Again, how many of these emails has Mr. Marks sent out? How many other blogs has Mr. Marks attempted to get my friend banned from?

Barlowe would absolutely never even think to email another blogger and suggest that blogger ban dmarks from his or her blog. This kind of behavior is beyond the pale in Barlowe's opinion, which is why Barlowe will reveal what dmarks wrote to him in private with no guilt what-so-ever. Deplorable behavior like this needs to be called out, and that is exactly what Barlowe is now doing.

The message from dmarks (below) also contains his email address; and that I would have removed if not for the fact that the email is included in dmarks' profile, so it isn't something he does not want seen (unlike his blog, which is hidden). For that reason I left it.

Now, for the complete and unedited message. This communication from dmarks was sent to Barlowe's email on 4/27/2013 back when dmarks thought Barlowe was a Conservative blogger and when dmarks did not know that Barlowe was friends with another individual that dmarks hates...

dmarks via Throwawayblog (iahpblog@yahoo.com) wrote: Hi I just wanted to quielty suggest that you adopt the blog policy Will Hart and myself reluctantly came to adopt, which is moderating the blog and deleting any W-Dervish comments. It makes a blog better by doing so. His repeated lies and personal statements are beyond what others (I.e. Ema) say, and what he demands, which have included repeatedly calling for George W. Bush to be murdered over "crimes" Bush never commited, go beyond left wing views into dangerous nuttiness. And yes WD has gone so far as to impersonate others (such as Will) and also to send dozens of comments selling penis lengthening products. Its both fraud and harassment. He even caused the liberal "Ambassador Truth" to have a similar policy at his blog. It is your blog and your choice, of course. Personally though I find some reluctance to comment on posts in which WD has already defecated. If you choose to adopt this policy which Will and I have, please just do it quietly and flush him regardless of what he says. I have never had to do this to anyone else in my blog, and I believe Will has only done it to two (WD and a global warming kook known as number guy).

(Note: one spelling correction was made to dmarks email... in red. Otherwise the message is complete and unaltered).

Now, I'm not going to suggest that a blog could be made better by moderating and screening out dmarks comments. That is for each individual blogger to decide. If you do, however, ever get a dmarks comment, it is a good thing to know, I think, that this guy is a notorious liar. If you want some examples I suggest checking out this blog; authored by someone who clearly has been subjected to the dangerous nuttiness of Mr. Marks.

As for the "personal statements", Barlowe doesn't know what dmarks is talking about. My friend also is not a liar (unlike dmarks), and does not make "personal statements". Not about himself nor anyone else. The claim that my friend has called for George bush to be murdered is just silly. He has never called for it, let alone "demanded" it. As for the "impersonating" of others, that happened one time when dmarks was allowing anonymous comments. My friend entered the name "Will Hart" and linked to Hart's blog. It was a joke that my friend told dmarks about shortly after doing it. dmarks makes it sound like this "impersonation" is something my friend does regularly. But, as I already noted, dmarks lies.

The member-lengthening links sent by my friend were also a joke, sent in response to dmarks insulting my friend. But I'm not going to get into a long explanation regarding that, because my friend wrote a post on his blog explaning the whole incident. If interested follow the link. I will add, however, that the "fraud" charge is idiotic and the "harrassement" allegation is bogus as well.

FindLaw.com says "not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety". My friend has never send any "harassing" comments or emails to Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks may have been annoyed (and that actually was the goal), but "harassment" means something (legally), and no harassment ever took place.

If being annoying was "harassment", dmarks' continual lies about my friend on the blog of Will Hart and others would certainly qualify. dmarks has followed my friend around the internet and told his lies about my friend on various other blogs, referring to my friend as a "spammer" and "internet troll".

For example, back in July of 2013 dmarks encountered "WD" (his nickname for my friend... one among many) on the blog "Progressive Soup" and spun the following tale in an effort to sour the proprietor on Dervish Sanders (my friend).

dmarks: WD is lying here on many things. ... He is also a troll who has gotten banned on many blogs. from mine for posting dozens of profanity-based comments per day in which he ranted about the length of his penis. (7/1/2013).

The above comment is typical of the BS that spews from the lying maw of the confabulist dmarks. He takes a kernel of truth and surrounds it with a cornfield of fibs and vile lies. Dervish is NOT a "troll who has gotten banned on many blogs". dmarks and his buddy Will Hart banned Dervish. Nobody else has. Dervish has never posted EVEN ONE "profanity-based comment" on dmarks' blog. One or two times he swore at dmarks on Will Hart's blog when dmarks pushed his buttons by lying about him, but that's it.

Finally, Dervish absolutely never "ranted about the length of his penis". That is an "embellishment" (AKA lie) that dmarks added to the story. Every time he tells it he adds more "facts". In this case, the false fact dmarks added was that Dervish "ranted about the length of his penis"... when the comments were simply links and text for member lengthening products (sent as a joke). The links had nothing at all to so with Dervish's privates.

Now, back to the email from dmarks to Barlowe that is quoted near the top of this commentary - in regards to the charge that "Ambassador Truth" (AKA Joe Truth, AKA Joe Hagstrom, AKA Joe "Truth 101" Kelly) had a policy of moderating and deleting w-dervish comments - this is also completely false. Mr. Hagstrom/Kelly did write a commentary critical of Mr. Sanders, but he never banned Dervish from his blog (which is now closed). dmarks is lying about this as well.

Also my friend Dervish finds dmarks referring to his commenting on other blogs as "defecation" and filtering out his remarks as "flushing" highly insulting. Barlowe is also not sure what it is about dmarks' psychosis that causes him not only to be trapped in a constant state of confabulation, but also be subject to a strange fecal obsession. Who knows? Barlowe is not a psychiatrist. As a layman in this area, Barlowe's diagnosis is that the loathsome and despicable dmarks is "nuts", and, in regards to the online presence of Mr. Marks, he could be labeled a "blog defecator", as dmarks surely shits on the site (in comment form) of any blog where his inane rantings are published.

TLB #52

Barlowe Bayer Confesses

Barlowe Bayer is about to drop a bombshell confession, so grab a hold of your socks for a revelation that will rock the blogging world... which is that Barlowe Bayer is not a Conservative. Every single post that Mr. Bayer wrote prior to this one in a "Conservative voice" was complete BS. Now, before Barlowe gets to the reason for this deception, he would like to issue an apology to Mr. BB-Idaho. Mr. Idaho, you were not meant to be pulled into this, and it was never Barlowe's intention to make a fool of you. For that Barlowe is sorry.

Those who Barlowe did intend to make fools of with his prank included dmarks and Will Hart. You see, Barlowe Bayer is actually a Progressive Democrat and not a Conservative at all. And Barlowe, contrary to what prior posts most certainly suggested, is not a homophobe. Barlowe was simply pretending for the purposes of his prank.

Also - and Barlowe considers this very important - nobody else besides dmarks and Will Hart were ever intended to be fooled, which is why Barlowe never commented on any other blog except for those of Will Hart and dmarks... with one exception. dmarks recently closed his blog to the public and sent out emails to people "inviting" them to participate in his now private blog. It seems that dmarks has now dedicated his blog to lying about and bashing another blogger who Barlowe has great respect and admiration for.

This fine upstanding blogger asked Barlowe if Barlowe could act as his spy by obtaining an invitation to the blog of dmarks. "I am interested in what the delusional Dennis is saying" my friend told me. So I said "I'll do it", and I posted a comment on my own blog in response to a comment left by dmarks. I said "tried to visit your blog, dmarks, but see it is open to 'invited readers' only?". dmarks replied, "You should have received the invitation by now", but dmarks lied.

Turns out the delusional dmarks thinks my friend "raised suspicion Saturday by sending me [dmarks] a message begging for blog access as himself and then as 'Barlowe' a few minutes later". But my friend assures me that dmarks is full of poop. My friend says he DID send dmarks an email requesting an invitation as a joke (which dmarks spins as "begging"). But that email was sent the day before Barlowe commented on his blog (and, as you can see, Barlowe never asked for an invite). And my friend NEVER sent dmarks an email as himself and then "as Barlowe" a few minutes later. That simply did not happen.

I can assure you this is a FACT, because I know my friend does not lie. Also, it was dmarks who contacted Barlowe via email (after he commented on his own blog) and it was dmarks who offered to send an invitation to Barlowe. In dmarks' email to Barlowe, dmarks said Barlowe should send him an email so dmarks would know who to send the invitation to. The idiot dmarks said he would have invited Barlowe, but Google Plus is a "black hole" and he couldn't find the address... even though it is clearly displayed in the "about" section of Barlowe's Google Plus profile, under "Contact information".

Idiot or not (and I think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests dmarks IS an idiot), he nor Will Hart ever would have caught on to the fact that Barlowe was pranking them. The truth was revealed only by accident. Seems that Barlowe was standing by for the invite by dmarks to his blog. While refreshing his Google inbox from time to time, he headed over to the Rational Nation blog.

And that, unfortunately, is where it all went wrong. Barlowe went off and did some other things in the real world, returned to his computer, and totally forgot that he was signed in with the "Barlowe" account. Reading a lie-filled comment by dmarks, Barlowe (who didn't realize he was Barlowe) wrote a reply and - even though the name "Barlowe Bayer" was displayed in the drop down box where the account one wishes to use to submit the comment is located - hit the submit button.

Now, to be clear, Barlowe had never intended to post any comments on the blog of Rational Nation. Les Carpenter of Rational Nation was never a part of Barlowe's prank. The SOLE targets of Barlowe's prank were dmarks and Will Hart. That "Barlowe" commented on the Rational Nation blog was purely by accident.

A stupid accident that was caused by Barlowe's inattentiveness, but an accident none-the-less. Not that it matters, I suppose, as Barlowe had actually retired from blogging. The purpose of the prank having been fulfilled... which was to see if dmarks and Will Hart would embrace Barlowe as one of their own - which THEY DID (while they rejected my friend, whom was banned by both of them from their respective blogs). Satisfied that Barlowe had proven his point, he decided to retire the ID. I mean, Barlowe never intended to comment using the "Barlowe" account on any other blog, as Barlowe had no desire to misrepresent myself to anyone other than the two bloggers already mentioned.

Retired, that is, until Barlowe decided that the "Barlowe" account might be of use in getting dmarks to send an email inviting Barlowe to view his blog where he was posting lies about my friend. But the delusional fool dmarks "suspected" I was someone else other than who I was pretending to be... which occurred, according to his comment on the Rational Nation blog, BEFORE Barlowe accidently commented when he thought he was signed in with another account.

So dmarks imagined Barlowe contacting him minutes after my friend did. I say "imagined" because it never happened. Given that dmarks' imaginings made him suspicious before Barlowe accidently commented on the RN blog and revealed himself to be, in Les Carpenter's words, "a crank", obviously Barlowe was never going to get that invite. Perhaps if my friend hadn't sent dmarks the joke email the DAY BEFORE asking for one, then dmarks wouldn't have imagined Barlowe contacted him "a few minutes later"?

Who knows? In any case, it has occurred to Barlowe that now would be a good time to point out to dmarks and Will Hart that his prank was a success. Both were completely fooled, with dmarks (or "Dennis", as my friend has taken to calling him) even adding a link to Barlowe's blog to the sidebar of his (dmarks') blog. So, even though the scheme to get an invite was ruined by a stupid accident, that accident would only have barred him from further viewing dmarks' blog. Because if the delusional idiot hadn't imagined an email "minutes later" that was never sent, Barlowe would have gotten that invite (even if dmarks later retracted it).

Excuse me, I lost my train of thought there and went off in another direction... what I meant to say was that, even though the scheme to get an invite was ruined, the prank was still a rousing success. And now I can (now that the deception has been revealed) do a victory dance in regards to said success. And I can reveal the contents of an email that dmarks sent to Barlowe back when he thought Barlowe was "on his side". But I shall leave that revelation for another post.

In other words, there shall be at least one more post here on "the Larboard Brain" before Barlowe retires for good. I mean, of what use is Barlowe post-outing? He can't post on any blogs now. Not dmarks' blog because dmarks isn't going to invite him, and not Will Hart's blog, now that dmarks outed him there, and not on any other blog either, because, as I said earlier, the sole purpose of the "Barlowe" account was to fool dmarks and Will Hart.

Barlowe has never, and will never attempt to fool anyone else. Barlowe loves a good prank, but Barlowe is not the type of dishonest fellow who delights in fooling people for no reason, hence his apology to BB-Idaho. Who - oddly in Barlowe's estimation - was the only non-conservative who followed links Barlowe dropped on the "Contra O'Reilly" blog and actually commented on Barlowe's blog (although there was a few comments by Ema, I believe, but she didn't stick around).

If any other Democrats had commented on Barlowe's blog he may have had to pull the plug, as fooling those he agrees with ideologically was something he most definitely did not desire. But, and to drive home this point before ending this post... that didn't happen. Barlowe's prank was a success and THAT is what should be remembered; that dmarks and Will Hart were successfully pranked and Barlowe can go to his retirement knowing he accomplished his goal of pulling one over on dmarks and Will Hart. So there.

TLB #51

The Maker Blues

As you can see from my lack of posts here, I have largely retired from blogging. No commenting on the blogs of others, either. I lost interest and decided my time would be better spent on other activities. Work, mainly. Being a Maker and working hard to earn enough to live comfortably while, at the same time, having a too-large amount of money stolen to support all the Takers that voted for Obama is not an easy task.

When will the Republican Party get their act together and get serious about rebuilding so that they have a chance the next time out? Then again, perhaps they are relying on Obama to do all the work for them? Once the economy crashes again, then the public may be forced to accept the fact that a welfare state is unsustainable. But, even though that will probably require a economic depression, I fear it is the only way this country will ever wake up.

Unfortunately that will likely mean mass poverty, starvation and even rioting of the ignorant masses who think they should be given a free ride paid for by those of us who are working our butts off and using our brains to get ahead. Barack Obama has demonized us productive people to the point where the idiots who vote Democrat think we (those of us whose work keeps the economy going) are the bad guys.

Frankly, I find it truly sickening. When the economy collapses due to their greed and laziness I too will suffer. That is why I'm trying to accumulate as much wealth as possible before it all goes to hell. Of course an investment strategy will be key to surviving the coming depression, as inflation will likely make any cash one might hold worth considerably less.

So far my investments have been doing well, providing a decent rate of return. I only worry about getting out before the stock market crashes. My sources say that around the time of the next presidential election is when the policies of Obama may cause the house of cards which is our economy to come tumbling down. I fear that day, although I am planning for it and working to see that I have enough to make it though.

Many of you Takers will likely bite the dust, but I surely will not shed a tear. You will only have your lack of foresight and selfishness to blame for your predicament then. You should have voted for Mitt Romney instead of going for the guy who promised you free stuff paid for by those of us who actually work.

TLB #50

My Problem With Dan The Liberal Slacker

Dan, an employee who works under me at the firm, has an Obama 2012 bumper sticker on his car. That confirmed it for me. Not that I was unaware of Dan's Liberal leanings before. Dan was transferred into my department a few months ago. The big boss man told me to take Dan under my wing. Dan is the son of the boss man's college roommate.

Dan is also a slacker and a total idiot. No surprise given his progressive proclivities. I took some clients out for steaks the other day and mentioned it while discussing the account with the big boss in the conference room. Dan wanted to ask the boss for a favor or something and entered the room during the tail end of our conversation.

After hearing about the steaks we ordered Dan began spouting off about how going vegan was good for the environment. I looked at the boss and he just rolled his eyes. I'd like to discuss with the boss the possibility of firing Dan, but I don't think he'd be open to the idea. Yes, the boss thinks Dan is a little odd, but his friendship with Dan's father makes the firing of Dan a little problematic.

I think I'm going to have to wait until Dan screws up and actually costs the firm money. I just hope it isn't a lot of money, as that could negatively impact the stats for my department. For the time being I think I'll continue having the intern check Dan's work and report back to me.

Susan asked me the other day why Dan got an assistant while nobody else did. I told her that Dan was still learning the ropes and I didn't have the time to mentor him anymore. Obviously that lie can only hold up for so long. Hopefully by then Dan will have exposed himself for the inept loser than he is. Then I will finally be able to breech the topic of canning him with the big boss.

TLB #49, BS #3.

Regarding Jodi Arias 2

In my previous post on this subject I briefly mentioned that Jodi Arias' victim and former boyfriend Travis Alexander was a Mormon. Jodi Arias is a Mormon, although she converted to Mormonism simply to please her (at the time) boyfriend. Although her conversion may not have been genuine. I also read something about her being Wiccan previously.

In any case neither one of them (as we all WELL know) adhered to their religion when it came to premarital sex. But, according to Arias, Alexander had a "Bill Clinton" view of sex, in that only intercourse counts, and that other methods could be used to get around the Mormon prohibition against getting it on prior to holy matrimony.

But that lying pervert Clinton was wrong, as was Mr. Alexander – if Arias is to be believed (although she is a huge liar I think, in regards to this, she is being truthful). Sounds like he used her and tried to throw her away, and that is why she snapped. There has to be some reason she murdered him, aside from being crazy, that is.

BTW, I'm not saying she was justified in killing Alexander, or that Arias is (or was at the time) legally insane and therefore not culpable. NO. She was convicted and justifiably so. Only that she should have dumped him for being an a-hole and a pervert instead of killing him.

Speaking of Mormons, I must (or perhaps I should not) say that is a problem I had in voting for Romney. Honestly (and maybe I shouldn't be this honest) I don't consider Mormonism a real religion. I think Joseph Smith was a fake and a liar - and it is his lies that form the basis of Mormonism. That is why I had reservations voting for a candidate who believes Joe Smith was a prophet and "The Book of Mormon" is something other than complete baloney.

But it wasn't as if there was a viable alternative. The Libs may conclude, given what I just said, I'd have supported Santorum... but no. That guy went to far in combining religion and government. Religion is a private matter and should largely stay that way. Also, he was a little too homophobic. I mean, I believe marriage shouldn't be redefined, but beyond that I think the guy is for the government sticking its nose in people's private lives WAY too much.

FYI, this falls into the category of "burning off old posts" I mentioned in my previous commentary... this something I wrote awhile ago and didn't get around to posting (on the same day I wrote the other Arias post actually). But, given my new job responsibilities, I didn't have the time to publish it. I had a few minutes today so I decided to check in, and it appears the place is dead. Only one comment on my post concerning why I've retired from blogging? Others indicated a desire to know where I'd gone, but the desire quickly faded, apparently.

TLB #48

The Big Promotion

So the boss man calls me into his office and sits me down. Then he says, "Barlowe, you've been with the company for a long time. You're a hard worker and you've produced a lot of profit for this firm. Long story short, I want to offer you the big promotion. Needless to say, a substantial raise comes with the promotion. And the corner office too. The downside is that you'll have to take on a lot more responsibility and work more hours. But I have confidence that you can handle it".

Now, being a shrewd negotiator I didn't jump at the offer, but first had him lay out all the details. How much was the "big raise"? No, it wasn't enough. I had been entertaining offers from other firms, and the boss man's offer fell short. So we negotiated a bit and he increased his offer. I think when retirement time comes I will be sitting mighty pretty. But the increased hours and responsibility leave little time for frivolities like blogging (I was kidding about "going off the grid").

The real reason for my absence is that I've been quite busy getting up to speed on my new responsibilities. I've had to reorganize an entire department as well as call a few under performing team members into my office. Unfortunately some of them had to be let go, which means more work for me interviewing replacements. But now that my house is in order I think the future for my department is looking mighty good. Meaning I am anticipating increased profits going forward.

No doubt the boss man will be very pleased, which means I should be able to negotiate for an nice salary bump the next time my evaluation rolls around. That would be on top of the one I just received. Us productive people are in high demand, what with approximately 47 percent of the country contributing nothing to the kitty, but instead pulling resources out. Yes, people like me have to work harder to support the deadbeats, and (for that reason) I considered not accepting the promotion.

It thoroughly sickens me to think that a good portion of my hard earned salary will be distributed as hand-outs to Obamaites who spend all day smoking weed and watching TV. I work harder and the government takes more? Yeah, the raise pushed me up into a higher tax bracket, so that's more of MY MONEY going to the welfare state. These people should get jobs instead of Obamabucks for nothing.

But that is why they voted for him. He got re-elected and they get their payoff. And it is people like me that have to pay for it! Anyway, I wrote a few posts before everything happened that prevented me from blogging (writing posts or commenting on the blogs of my blogging friends dmarks and Will Hart). I'll probably post those (at least) over the next few days or weeks (seeing as they are already written). After that, who knows? I'm going to be pretty busy with my new responsibilities.

TLB #47, BS #2.

Shutting Down My Blog Because I Have Retired From Blogging

I'm considering moving to some remote place and living without credit cards, using a phone, etc. Going "off the grid", in other words. The purpose would be to avoid/prevent any spying/accumulation of my personal data by the Obama administration. If this blog is never updated again you can assume that is exactly what happened.

TLB #46, BS #1.

Regarding Jodi Arias

Sounds to me like her boyfriend (the dude she murdered) strung her along for quite awhile (even after he dumped her) so he could continue to have deviant sex with her (in the butt) while he looked for a good Mormon girl he could marry. Now, I am in no way saying he got what was coming to him, but neither is he completely blameless.

They were both lacking in moral character, IMO. She a gold digger, he using her desire to land him to get her to perform deviant sexual acts. Then he cut her loose, but continued to use her for sex? It must have blinded him to how crazy she was (and still is) that she'd go along with whatever he wanted in the sack.

So should she get the death penalty? Not being a criminal-coddling lefty, I think it would be appropriate. From what I hear there is a good possibility she'll fry. The anti-ultimate justice Libs no doubt believe she should get counseling and be rehabilitated. Frankly I think rehabilitation isn't possible with many criminal types and not at all with mental defectives like this Arias chick. Not that I believe she didn't know what she was doing and should get off for that reason (insanity).

In any case – this should, perhaps, be a lesson to the single guys out there (who are completely lacking in morals). If you want to use a woman for sex and string her along for an extended period of time – make sure she isn't a psycho nutcase first.

TLB #45

How Dumb Does Barack Obama Think We Are?

Notice that, in response to all the scandals that plague his administration, prez Hussein claims he knows nothing? Neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder knew the ATF had decided to arm the Mexican drug cartels. He says he did not know the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack linked to Al Qaeda instead of a spontaneous uprising linked to a protest over a video – even though whistle blowers testifying before Congress say they told him it was a terrorist attack.

Eric Holder claims he didn't know about the decision to seize AP phone records. Hussein claims he did not know the IRS was targeting Conservative groups. Not until he saw the news reports.

What is this guy, a figurehead who holds no actual power, or the leader of the free world? Does anyone in this incompetent administration actually make any decisions or stay in the loop in regards to anything for which they are supposedly responsible? Just how dumb does the Hussein administration think we are?

If you're like me you aren't buying these incredibly lame protests of not knowing what the hell is going on. You know the entire Hussein Administration is lying to us. And they've got to know how transparent their lies are becoming. They are so desperate that they'd rather the public believe they are unbelievably incompetent then realize how corrupt they actually are.

What's with these delusional Liberals in complete denial regarding their savior's fall from grace? Is it that they just can't wrap their brains around the fact that Hussein lied to them? That the first Black president is also one of the worst commanders in chief ever to serve? And, NO, Libs, I intend no racism by making that statement. It is just an observation of the obvious.

Regardless of whether the far-lefties continue to defend the indefensible, the American people are waking up. A recent poll reveals that HALF of America wants this crooked liar removed from office, including almost 28 percent of Democrats.

Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies (the company that conducted the poll) says, "the appetite is growing for impeachment proceedings. It is too early to say it is time for those proceedings to start, but it's now possible to see that day on the far horizon". Sorry Libs.

TLB #44

Obama And The I-Word (If Only We Could Recall Him)

The Liberals tried and failed to recall my governor, Scott Walker. They thought they could win but what they didn't realize is that even Democrat voters knew we needed to reign in the greed of the public sector unions. No doubt that quite a few teachers, firefighters and cops voted for Walker, knowing it would cost them but willing to give up what they knew they didn't deserve. Certainly not when the rest of us with private sector jobs are still suffering under the Obama economy.

With Obama, however, there is a stark contrast. Obama, unlike Walker, isn't doing what is necessary to get the country back on the right fiscal path. Instead he spends our money to buy votes and campaign contributions for himself and his fellow Democrats.

The corruption of this administration is becoming much more clear in it's second term, what with the lies and cover up concerning Benghazi, using the IRS to target political opponents, and the tyrannical seizing of records from reporters. There are many more scandals of course (listed at the beginning of my previous post) but it is these three that are generating some serious talk of impeachment.

If only we could recall him, I think many Americans who voted for Obama the last time out would not just go with whatever candidate the Democrats put up in Obama's place (Biden or Hillary) - but would acknowledge they were wrong in not electing Romney when they had the chance. Certainly Romney would get the vote of independents and conservative Democrats who deeply regret voting for the miserable liar who occupies the White House.

Alas, the Constitution does not allow for the recall of a president. The best we could hope for would be a president Biden if the Republicans retook the Senate in the midterms. Unless it could be proven Biden was in on the lying and we impeached him as well. That, however, would be historically unprecedented (and therefore quite unlikely).

Still, there could be some benefits to impeaching Hussein, namely slowing down (or even halting) his Socialist agenda of spending money we don't have and making the "rich" he vilifies pay for (some of) it (while borrowing the rest from China). What do you think? Should we impeach or should we not impeach?

I say yes, but wait until we get nearer to the midterms so we can use it as ammunition to take out his Democrat allies and win the Senate. When, exactly that would mean impeachment proceedings should begin I do not know, but I'm sure the Republicans are on top of it (or I hope they are).

TLB #43

The Tyrant Obama Orders Death From Above Via Drone

The issue with his birth certificate, budget-busting healthcare "reform", an attempt to classify CO2 as a pollutant, more thievery in the form of increased taxes, refusing to defend DOMA, an attempt to weaken the second amendment, the Benghazi cover up, and now the scandalous revelation that Hussein's IRS targeted Conservative groups... certainly one can not deny that Hussein's presidency is the worst since (at least) Jimmy Carter.

In particular the ability to execute American citizens as he sees fit gives Libertarian John Myers of the Personal Liberty Digest serious cause for concern. Mr. Myers warns of Hussein's "secret army" that allows Hussein to act as "executioner against Americans he sees as his enemy".

Myers points out that Liberal author Jeremy Scahill says "Obama has been granted a blank check to vastly expand drone strikes while blatantly ignoring the Constitution by denying habeas corpus". Yes, Hussein has only executed two American citizens, SO FAR, but "when you stop denying one subset of Americans due process, you are on a slippery slope toward eliminating other Americans whom the President and his secret cabal classify as enemies".

Frankly, I think it a good think when the lives of terrorist scum like al-Awlaki are ended via hellfire missile, but there needs to be some checks and balances on the process. Congress should be involved and who is on the "kill list" should not be in the hands of the executive only!

If this blatant ignoring of the Constitution were being done by a Republican president the hypocrite Liberals would be screaming impeachment, yet their savior Obama does it and not a peep?

TLB #42

The Scandal Predicted to Bring Down the Barack Hussein Obama Administration

Barack Hussein Obama will not serve out his second term. Instead he will be forced to resign or be impeached and leave office in disgrace. I read about this prediction on a well known Conservative News site. Several Republicans were quoted as believing it will be the Benghazi cover up that will be the undoing of Obama.

Frankly I'm not so sure. Yes, I think there was a cover up, and yes, I believe it could be of a magnitude that removing Hussein from office would be entirely appropriate -- but will it actually happen? Only one president has ever resigned from office. Two others were impeached, but they were not removed. Richard Nixon said if a president does it, then it is legal.

People considered that to be an arrogant statement, but I think for (the most part) it is true (not necessarily that anything a president does is legal, but that he can get away with it). It was only because Nixon recorded his misdeeds, and then did not destroy those tapes, that he made his removal from office a certainty. If he had not resigned he would have been bounced out by an impeachment and conviction.

According to the Washington Post, the "U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli, some 600 miles away, tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets" and that "the embassy also was unable to get permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops in Benghazi during the attack".

The question is why did Hussein allow these attacks to continue without responding? Was the Hussein administration's failure to act due to their incompetence or was there some other reason? Did they actually order those who could have responded to stand down?

Greg Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, says, "Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6am local time on Sept. 12 but [were told] "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go...".

I don't know about you, but that sounds quite damning to me. A commenter on the "Atlas Shrugs" message board has a theory regarding the stand down order -- he says, "the corruption of this administration pales in comparison to any other scandal. ...to have a Muslim President in office so soon after 9/11 is by design and no accident".

What do you think about this theory? Is it conspiracy theory nonsense from a nutjob, or a very real possibility? I'm leaning toward the later.

TLB #41

Taxacrat Mugging Attempt

We all knew that sooner or later the tax-and-spend types in Congress were going to try to pass legislation assessing a fee to purchase online. For Democrats, of course, there is no new tax that they do not love. Unfortunately some traitorous Senate Republicans joined in (today) and helped the Dems pass a bill to allow states to tax internet sales.

Hopefully the Republican controlled House will reject this outrageous mugging of the middle class. Prez Hussein got his tax increase on the so-called wealthy - now they are going after ordinary working folks?! I don't know about you, but I'm steamed. Especially that Senate Republicans would go along with this shake down of strapped everyday citizens. They are supposed to hold the line and stop the Dems when they attempt to pick our pockets.

It is true that you're supposed to self-report online purchases and pay the tax when you file your state income tax returns, but does anyone actually comply? Maybe happy to "contribute" Liberals (those who aren't living off entitlements and actually have an income), but I'd bet even the Liberal (hypocrite) compliance rate is low. I sure as hell do not divulge what I buy online to my state tax collectors. It is none of their fricking business.

If this bill passes taxes will be assessed and collected automatically by online retailers (and passed on to the states), so you'll have no choice but to pay up. CBS News reports that "some states have sales taxes as high as 7 percent, plus city and county taxes that can push the combined rate even higher". Apparently they think we're made of money!

Congress continues to spend without restraint knowing they can simply pass legislation to steal more from us already over-taxed citizens. Instead of balancing the books as they should. Additionally, as the CBS article warns, "States could audit out-of-state businesses, impose liens on their property and, ultimately, sue them in state court" - so this legislation gives even more power to the government to harass businesses by piling on onerous regulations. Does anyone else find this extremely troubling?

One commenter to the CBS News story put it best when he described Congress as "a mob of self-serving, greedy, corrupt, egomaniacs who could care less about the affects their actions or inactions have on the people they are supposed to represent".

TLB #40