RSSWill Terrorists Ever Learn?
This laugh courtesy of Cox & Forkum.
Abortionist Can’t Find Enough Victims To Pay Rent
Aside from the fact that it deals with murdering babies, this story is a funny twist of fate that proves left wingers will engage in bad economics just to further their agenda.
The pro-life Operation Rescue shut down an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kan., by purchasing the building that housed it and turning the facility into new headquarters and a “memorial to the pre-born.”The move began when Operation Rescue learned in late April that Central Women’s Services was months behind on its rental payments and that the property was for sale.
The pro-life group quickly made an offer on the building through a third party, stipulating in the contract that the current tenant not be retained. - WorldNetDaily
Guess there just aren’t enough mommas looking to abort their children any more.
Capitalism saves the day again!
 |
(Book)
Authors:Ramesh Ponnuru
Manufacturer:Regnery Publishing, Inc. Released:24 April, 2006 |
 |
(Book)
Authors:Linda Cochrane
Manufacturer:Baker Books Released:November, 1996 |
CAWG Porker Of The Month Is…
Robert KKK Byrd!
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa.) Porker of the Month for his legacy as the ?King of Pork,? as he became the longest-serving Senator in US. history this month. Sen. Byrd has sat on the Appropriations Committee since 1959, his first year in the Senate. Since 1991, West Virginia has received $2.95 billion in pork, $1.2 billion allocated in the Senate. The state has ranked among the top four in CAGW’s pork per capita every year since 2001 and became the first state to reap $1 billion in parochial projects in 1999, earning Sen. Byrd the CAGW-bestowed moniker, ?King of Pork.? Despite the senator?s beneficence, justified on the premise of his state?s poor economy, decades of raiding the federal Treasury have failed to improve the lot of West Virginians, who now suffer from the third-lowest personal income per capita in the country. For his legacy of narcissism and waste, CAGW names the ?King of Pork,? Sen. Robert Byrd, Porker of the Month for June 2006. Read more about the Porker of the Month. Read CAGW?s ?Byrd Droppings,? which chronicles 33 projects.
 |
(Book)
Authors:Citizens Against Government Waste
Manufacturer:St. Martin’s Griffin Released:10 March, 2005 |
 |
(Ebook)
Manufacturer:The Heritage Foundation
Released:01 January, 2002 |
House Says Drill. Moonbats Go Bonkers!
America is halfway to helping solve the looming energy crisis as well as high gas prices. Today the House passed legislation that would lift Stalinesque bans on offshore drilling much to the dismay of those on the left that like the idea of oppressive government control of land. Or in this case, water.
WASHINGTON ? Anxious to show voters back home that Congress can do something about high gas prices, House lawmakers approved legislation Thursday that would expand drilling for oil and natural gas off most of the U.S. coast and Alaska.The bill, which passed on a 232-187 vote, would end a ban on new domestic offshore drilling that for 25 years confined such activity almost exclusively to the western and central Gulf of Mexico.
The bill would grant states more control over energy production in federal waters. It also would give states a portion of royalties and fees energy companies now pay exclusively to the federal government. - USA Today
Of course it still has to get through the Senate and the pointy headed intellectuals that govern from there.
Environmental Marxists of course hate this idea. They claim that they care about the environment and all the poor fishies that will die and rail about miles of polluted beaches. But don’t be fooled. These are the same “environmentalists” that demand alternative sources of energy but block nuclear power plants and wind farms from being built. What they are really upset about is that if millions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas is added into the market that prices for these commodities will drop. And dropping prices means no crisis for them to control through proposed government regulation.
If this passes the Senate will there be some accidental disaster at some point that these folks will point to and scream about? Sure. Accidents happen. That is why they are called “accidents”. Should we not drill for oil because of that fear? Well, if you like being huddled about a small oil lamp in a cave because dictators cut off the oil supply then I guess so.
As for me, I say get it first before other countries do and sell it back to us for twice what it’s worth.
 |
(Book)
Authors:Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith
Manufacturer:WND Books Released:14 October, 2005 |
 |
(Book)
Authors:John Stossel
Manufacturer:Hyperion Released:09 May, 2006 |
New York Times Likes Gitmo Decision. DUH!
I was just reading the article over at the New York Times concerning the Guantanamo decision and I thought it was awfully funny to read this paragraph.
In the courtroom on Thursday morning, the chief justice sat silently in his center chair as Justice Stevens, sitting to his immediate right as the senior associate justice, read from the majority opinion. It made for a striking tableau on the final day of the first term of the Roberts court: the young chief justice, observing his work of just a year earlier taken apart point by point by the tenacious 86-year-old Justice Stevens, winner of a Bronze Star for his service as a Navy officer during World War II.
The article by By Linda Greenhouse is an absolute riot because of this because it is wholly untrue and purely puff to make the Chief Justice seem inferior to the intellectual Justice Stevens.
Justice Stevens’ opinion was not a “point by point” rebuke of Roberts? work. What it was, in fact, was a rambling, long-winded attempt to justify giving terrorists protections under the Geneva Conventions, which they clearly do not follow themselves. The opinion itself is utterly destroyed by the dissenting opinions of Alito, Thomas and Scalia. No doubt if Roberts had not recused himself, his dissent would have probably also dwarfed Stevens? attempt at understanding law.
I do like however how she threw in the mention of his Bronze Star and military service. That seems to be a common tactic to try and give credence to one’s opinions even when the opinions are ignorant.
 |
(Book)
Authors:Andrew P. Napolitano
Manufacturer:Nelson Current Released:07 February, 2006 |
 |
(Book)
Authors:Bernard Goldberg
Manufacturer:Warner Books Released:03 November, 2003 |
Supreme Court Usurps Power? Makes Treaty With Al Qaeda?
I don’t know if this surprises me at all. The court, despite two right of center appointees with originalist intents still is a very liberal court with 4 of the 9 justices being markedly liberal and one (Kenedy) apparently taking up Sandra Day O’Connors’ position of importance as the “swing vote”. Kennedy has always been a little chaotic in his rulings, never much worried about consistency, but now he seems to have moved decided left.
Today, the Supreme Court’s left wingers took it upon themselves to make terrorist members of Al Qaeda signatories to the Geneva Conventions despite the fact that:
1) they don’t have the authority to make treaties
2) Al Qaeda IS NOT a signatory to the Conventions
3) Al Qaeda refuses to abide by the rules of the convention (i.e. intentionally targeting civilians, refuse to wear uniforms, etc)
So basically now they are members of the treaty without believing in it or adhering to it.
There were reasons why the power to make treaties was not given to the courts. Apparently one of them is because judges don’t know much about concept stating “The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed be-cause its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49?72.” Well DUH! That is because you have to have agreed to and abide by the Geneva Conventions in order to be granted those rights!
You would think that someone in the black robes of a judge would understand that simple legal concept.
Justice Thomas in his descent apparently got Justice Stevens’ goat because in his opinion for the majority, Stevens spends endless footnotes citing his opinions and trying vainly to dismiss them. Sevens cannot hold a candle intellectually to Justice Thomas.
Justice Thomas properly notes:
it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner?s claims, see ante, at 1?11. The Court having concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the Court?s resolution of the merits of petitioner?s claims because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive?s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs.
and properly derides the majority citing
As with the jurisdiction of military commissions, the procedure of such commissions ?has [not] been prescribed by statute,? but ?has been adapted in each instance to the need that called it forth.? Madsen, 343 U. S., at 347?348. Indeed, this Court has concluded that ?[i]n the absence of attempts by Congress to limit the President?s power, it appears that, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, he may, in time of war, establish and prescribe the jurisdiction and procedure of military commissions.? Id., at 348. This conclusion is consistent with this Court?s understanding that military commissions are ?our common-law war courts.?
We’re two good Justices away from having a Supreme Court that actually upholds the law and the Constitution. I say two Justices because such would give the court 6 potential Constitutionalists (seeing as the true ability of Alito, Roberts, and two more appointees would take time to ascertain fully) which would mean even if one or two Justices would have to recuse themselves, there would still be a 5-3 or 4-3 majority to trump insanity such as that which we have witnessed today.
 |
(Book)
Authors:Andrew P. Napolitano
Manufacturer:Nelson Current Released:18 April, 2006 |
 |
(Book)
Authors:Mark R. Levin
Manufacturer:Regnery Publishing, Inc. Released:07 February, 2005 |
The Result of Being A “Strong Horse”
In a region of the world where loyalties run towards the strong we continue to see the benefits of not showing signs of leaving Iraq before the enemy is soundly defeated.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 26 ? Several Sunni-led insurgent groups have approached the Iraqi government to try to start negotiations after the Iraqi prime minister’s presentation on Sunday of a limited plan for reconciliation, a senior legislator from the prime minister’s party said Monday.The groups have made no demands yet, but wanted to express their views to top government officials, said the legislator, Hassan al-Suneid. “There are signals” from “some armed groups to sit at the negotiating table,” said Mr. Suneid, who, like the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, belongs to the Islamic Dawa Party, a conservative Shiite group.
The groups, made up of Iraqi nationalist fighters, have floated their proposal through Sunni Arab negotiators, Mr. Suneid said in a telephone interview. Although he described the groups as armed, he said they “are not implicated in the bloodletting of Iraqis.” - New York Times
If you think for one minute that this would be happening if they did not see the new Iraqi government as strong and our commitment to the Iraqi people as firm then you have got another think coming.
Right now they are trying to escape this war with the skin on their backs and their heads still attached.
 |
(Book)
Authors:Richard Miniter
Manufacturer:Regnery Publishing Released:24 October, 2005 |
 |
(Book)
Authors:Bill Sammon
Released:01 April, 2004 |
FairTax Gains More Support
In an email today fairtax.org announced four more co-sponsors:
Senator Johnny Isakson (GA)
Congressman John Mica (FL)
Congresswoman Thelma Drake (VA)
Congresswoman Kay Granger (TX)
 |
(Book)
Authors:Neal Boortz, John Linder
Manufacturer:Regan Books Released:02 August, 2005 |
 |
(Book)
Authors:Al Ose
Manufacturer:Authorhouse Released:December, 2002 |
On Flag Burning Amendment Hysterics
I don’t honestly care what you think about a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning or even an amendment that would simply allow States to pass laws to restrict the practice. But I will tell you what I think.
This is an issue where I smack heads with those who would like to be called conservatives. My opinions often result in a conservative prick waving contest by someone trying (in vane mind you) to prove that they are more patriotic than me because they support the State telling people what they can and cannot do with their property which they have bought and paid for where as I do not.
Plain and simple, there are certain functions of government, which are legitimate and a whole freaking ton of functions that are not. Legitimate functions secure the rights, liberties and privileges of the citizens. Illegitimate ones do none of that.
If you think for one second that passing a law to prevent someone from whipping out a flag (their private property) that they have paid for with their own money and burning it secures a one of those items I previously mentioned I would love to hear you try to make the argument. But seeing as how the argument cannot be made you would be wasting your breath.
An “amendment” allowing a prohibition on burning the American flag in protest is a symbolic gesture just like waving the flag in support of the country is a symbolic gesture. You can preach all you want about how the flag is a valuable symbol which millions have fought and died for and deserves protection. And you will be wasting your breath.
Not because I do not respect and honor those that have sacrificed for the flag, but because government must be constrained only to its legitimate functions. If it is not it will expand and engulf us all.
I often tell liberals to get over their complaints that because something “offends” them it should be outlawed or restricted. And I will tell those of you who take offense at someone burning the flag the same thing. Get over it. They’re anti-American, bigoted, left wing assholes - lots of people are.
Personally I like to see these people show their hatred for this country by burning the flag because it makes my point which is that this is about all they have the courage to do. And besides it is funny when the lighter fluid they dripped on their arm catches fire right?
The flag is a symbol. It represents substance but in and of itself is not substance.
As frequent readers of this site know however I do support one law with respect to flag burning. That law is that any of the anti-American, bigoted, assholes that want to do it should be required to stand up like a man and burn the flag in the middle of the parade grounds at the nearest military base. Don’t worry. They’ll never burn Old Glory ever again after than. I guarantee it.
|
(Book)
Authors:Andrew P. Napolitano
Manufacturer:Nelson Current Released:18 April, 2006 |
 |
(Book)
Authors:Anthony Lewis
Manufacturer:Vintage Released:01 September, 1992 |
The Gray Old Benedict Arnold?
Question: If Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had started a newspaper and published the classified information they had acquired in that paper instead of passing it covertly to the Soviets would they still have been guilty of treason?
Tell you what, we will come back to that question a little later to give you a chance to think about it ok?
In the mean time, let?s talk about the New York Times, which has once again raised some eyebrows. Within the past week the Times published information about a (by their own words) ?secret? program known as SWIFT. SWIFT used a network to ?follow the money? of terrorists and their backers around the world. It is also something the Times itself complained that the government should be doing shortly after the attacks of September 11th.
In the past it has been used successfully. However now the future use of this operation is in doubt.
I don?t know what part of ?classified? or ?top secret? some in the entrenched bureaucracy don?t seem to understand. But clearly we have some people whom, for whatever reason, think that they are the ones that chose what information is kept secret and what is disclosed.
The New York Times and other newspapers have been all too eager to take information from these rogue agents within our government and plaster it all over the pages they print. They do this to stir up anger over something they personally don?t like, a desire for revenge over some perceived wrong doing, ego spite, or what have you. Editors around the nation seem to salivate at the thought of getting a scoop on some government program without asking first how disclosing such information would be harmful. But at the same time they are not ashamed to show false outrage over a non-leak of non-classified information (i.e. Valerie Plame) when it suits them…
Read the rest at The Land of the Free
Loading ...
-
-
Recommended Reading:
