| "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." |
| "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." |
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."—U.S. Constitution, III.3.
So far, the United States Army has not shown any willingness to apply the Constitution they swore to support and defend. They could have stood Nidal Hasan against a wall and let the 21-gun salute for his victims dispatch him to the hereafter. I dunno, maybe his legs weren't strong enough yet to hold him up.
Now, we find out he won't even be charged with treason. Yes, a single conviction on any of the 13 counts of murder would be enough to execute him. But why was treason excluded from the list of charges? It isn't like shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while pulling the trigger isn't overt. Neither is there any shortage of witnesses.
Why won't the Army man up? Are they so afraid of offending this putative "victim" Hasan that they would throw the real victims under the bus?
It took Sgt. Kimberly Munley three minutes to accomplish more for peace than Barack Obama has accomplished in a year.
But you can still bet your bottom dollar that she would never make it past the nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Update 2009-10-13: New reports are indicating it was not Sgt. Munley, but rather Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, who stopped Nidal Hasan's rampage at Ft. Hood.
The point still stands.
The House of Representatives has just passed a massive bill to overhaul health care. Part of that bill requires that I subscribe to a $15,000 health insurance policy, or else risk a felony conviction and five years in jail.
Whoa, hold on there! Are you saying I'd be a lifetime criminal because I CHOOSE what to do with my body?
Oh, wait, that's right. I'm not a Woman or some other Victim, so I have no choice.
The Flying Imams' lawsuit has been presided over by a judge who apparently lacks any imagination, if the following excerpt from her Not Jihadis ruling is any indicator:
The MAC Defendants have produced no evidence of a documented instance in which seatbelt extensions were used as a weapon or that law enforcement ever expressed concern about their use as a weapon. It is difficult to understand what danger a seatbelt extension poses that is not also posed by a sturdy belt with a large buckle. Even assuming the extensions could be employed as a weapon, the MAC Defendants have failed to offer a reasoned explanation of how Saleddin, who is completely blind, could pose such a threat.
Laughable on its face, if it didn't involve such dangerous circumstances. The very first sentence shows the limits of her thinking: "We've never seen it happen, so it will never happen." With that kind of thinking, we'd still be living in the Stone Age.
This judge can't imagine how much easier it is to swing a seat belt strap over one's head when both ends are detached. She also can't imagine why a team preparing for an attack would want to have a weapon in reserve with a guy whom they knew, rather than trying to get another weapon on an aircraft they don't know, from a flight crew they don't know.
This isn't a matter of law. This is a matter of street-smarts, where the law itself has become a weapon for the benefit of those who care nothing for the law. File this one under "Stupid, Vacuous Adults."
For such legalistic, short-sighted sophistry, Ann Montgomery deserves to be removed from the bench, immediately.
(H/T: Scott Johnson)
The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete, but so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under "M" for mankind—in the Twilight Zone.
Tomorrow is the so-called "Vote Earth," when we're all supposed to turn off our lights and SAVE THE PLANET!!!!11`1one
What a bunch of hooey.
In Baghdad, most people have no choice but to live with no lights for several hours at a time. Somehow, I doubt any Baghdadis would argue the superiority of that. And we're supposed to choose it voluntarily?
For all her literary and psychological shortcomings, Ayn Rand knew that hard work must be rewarded. In her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, she shows what happens when effort and talent are punished, and the rule of law is replaced with the whims of the mob. If you haven't read the book, at least click the link; I'll wait here until you're done.
It was a work of fiction, right? Either that, or a prophecy.
Jake DeSantis, executive V.P. of A.I.G.'s Financial Products, resigned this week in a very public manner: on the op-ed page of the New York Times. He gave a very pointed outline of why he was leaving. Ayn Rand would be proud:
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down....
[Y]ou... are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut....
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.
The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press....
For those who have read the book (or at least Mike Baron's editoral), the parallels with the claims in this letter should be obvious. For those who haven't read the book, well, soon there may be no need to read it.
The lede of this AP story repeats the stem cell canard:
Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."
The biggest cover-up is this: After years of research, both in the United States and other nations, not a single disease has a proven treatment based on embryonic stem cells. This inconvenient truth exposes the real agenda of the Deathocrats, who are now throwing a bone to their abortion industry donors.
Let private entities fund embryonic stem-cell research. When unemployment is high and getting higher, it is irresponsible to throw money at such an un-promising line of inquiry.
EDIT: I forgot to include a link to the article, but here is another article with the same quote.
"Not my president."—Julia Roberts, 2001
"Not my president."—me, 2009
Let's see... Seven hundred billion US dollars, provided extorted by the Internal Revenue Service and then handed out piecemeal to various parties of questionable need (GM, Chrysler, and God knows how many other CEO's in their corporate jets) has produced its first visible action: an ad thanking us for our "generosity." As if saying "thanks" will make me more likely to buy their over-priced, socialist-union-produced, unnecessary crap? Don't tell me that a thermometer readout in the radio display is necessary; if you aren't driving more carefully in freezing conditions, you shouldn't be driving at all.
Happy New Year, and BOHICA.
With gratitude to our President, George W. Bush;
To the troops who give, and gave, their lives in defense of our nation and our Constitutional freedoms;
To the courageous Iraqis who risked their lives and their families, sometimes paying the ultimate price, in order to stand against tyranny;
To all those, from all over the world, who joined and supported them in affirming the humanity of the oppressed.
By popular acclaim, the call has gone out to declare Victory in Iraq Day on November 22nd. We need to celebrate it now, while George W. Bush is still the President of the United States, so that he can get his due credit. He will not get the credit from the popular press, from the President-elect Barack Obama, or the rest of the world, but he and the soldiers he commands can get it from us, the practitioners of Free Speech.
Get the word out!
The busybody Democrat leadership wants to bail out the auto industry, after trying to destroy it. From the WaPo:
With the nation's automotive industry hemorrhaging cash, congressional leaders called on the Bush administration yesterday to offer government assistance to the car companies...
The call came one day after General Motors, the nation's largest auto manufacturer, announced another multibillion dollar loss for the third quarter and said it was running out of money fast. Ford, the second-biggest car company, also reported heavy losses.
Let's take a score here. First, the Dems back unions, whose thugs extort contracts demanding outrageous benefits, even to the point of being paid the same cash whether an employee is working or not. Foul against the Dems.
Next, the Dems blame the oil industry for pollution, and as "punishment" levy taxes that would shame our Founding Fathers. Another foul against the Dems.
How about one more foul? Dems again demonize the oil industry for "profits" as prices rise, an event brought about by bad weather and external supply manipulations. Food prices rise, travel plans are canceled, and prices finally begin to fall as the economy tanks (because Dems refused to do anything about Fannie Mac).
That's three fouls from the Dems, which put together wreak havoc on the auto industry. In basketball, it would mean ejection from the game. But in Congress, it means Pelosi and Reid are supposed to get credit for throwing our money at a problem they created with their meddling.
A co-worker, who leans as far to the left as I do to the right, told me that there's just no way he could ever vote for a Republican, even while conceding Barack Obama has lots of problems in his career background. He even expressed a desire to vote for John McCain, if only he didn't have that (R) beside his name.
One thing he and I agreed wholeheartedly on, even if for totally opposite reasons: Whoever won the election, the United States would get the leadership she deserves.
Now we get to see who was more correct in his assessment.
The most important aspect of this election is where we go for the next four years. The second most important aspect, by a very small margin, is the final judgment of the United States public concerning the Vietnam era. The two candidates personify the exoneration, or the condemnation, of our soldiers in Vietnam and their command in the Pentagon.
In the Republican corner, we have John McCain, who was captured, held as a POW, and tortured by North Vietnamese Communists, leaving him with injuries he carries to this day.
In the Democrat corner, we have Barack Obama, whose mentors provided active support to those same North Vietnamese Communists, John McCain's captors and torturers, by publicly declaring their alignment and bombing both civilian and military installations, including the Pentagon, center of US military command, an act of war defined in the United States Constitution as "treason" (Art. III, Sect. 3).
The meaning behind either one elected President, should be self-evident.
Each of the candidates brings in a history relating to that time period. Which one we promote to The Most Powerful Person In The World will be the expression of our nation's opinion about the Vietnam War.
There are no larger surveys, no polls, no movie receipts, no measure of any kind, to match the scale of our vote for President. There has been dissent, there have been private voices funded by private money, voices of individuals or small groups, or even not-so-small groups, but this is far beyond anything those offer. For a national opinion poll, the vote for President cannot be surpassed.
We have had lots of time to look back, share information, find facts, try to heal the rifts, embrace the innocent who were abandoned or even attacked for their service. We have been trying to do these now for over 20 years; a new generation has appeared in the meantime, and a second is now being born. They know nothing of the times of Vietnam, except the stories that they have heard. And, thanks to the Internet, the research resources available are no longer restricted to those able to find a publisher or publicist; anyone can tell their story to those who want to read it.
I think the personal conclusions have been reached, and there is not much more that will change them, on a large scale, in our lifetime. If they do change, it will be little by little, almost imperceptibly. And, if a similar, future "national referendum" on the Vietnam War would show a different result than what we will see this week, it will be so far into the future that Vietnam will no longer be a living memory.
So, for all intents and purposes, this Tuesday's election is the final public referendum on Vietnam. Whatever changes may appear in the future, I do not expect any of us to see.
Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against a dead defendant has been tossed:
You can't sue God if you can't serve the papers on him, a Douglas County District Court judge has ruled in Omaha.
Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served. What's more, Polk found "there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant."
Somewhere, I think I hear God laughing.
Now that we're less than a month away from Election Day, the opinion polling is becoming more intense, and at the same time more unpredictable. The growing noise level in the polls makes them essentially useless, as the campaign rhetoric becomes more intense.
The one poll I will watch for is the Weekly Reader poll. It shows, via our grade-schoolers, what adults are saying behind closed doors. As such, it gives the clearest pre-election picture of the national sentiment.
I see two headlines on Drudge right now about the Paris fashion scene. The first has a model on the catwalk, wearing a short dress with Barack Obama's face, larger than life, occupying most of the front.
The second has Sascha Baron Cohen crashing the same show.
Karma? You decide.
Be not conformed to this world...--Romans 12:2, KJV
It might be a defective translation, but recent events put into stark contrast the reality behind it.
In 2003, "the world" whined, begged, and implored with us to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. We, the willing, ignored them; we relieved Saddam of his self-assigned post, and relieved Iraqis of the fear and suffering he caused. Anyone who thinks this wasn't the right, and righteous, thing to do should go to Iraq and find out otherwise.
Now, "the world" is begging us to prop up their defective economies with even more handouts, as if we haven't handed them enough of our own sweat already.
"The world" make up their minds whether we're the Good Guys or the Bad Guys, based solely on what we can do for them.
Well, I've got news for them: We can show them the way to prosperity, but we aren't going to carry them to it. It takes work, not handouts, to make a living. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch; even breathing isn't free, when you consider it takes energy to move your lungs and pump your heart.
We do not answer to "the world" for how we conduct our affairs. And I'm glad for it.
One of those zingers that's making its way through emails, trying to defend Barack:
Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
Not quite. Pontius Pilate was a fascist puppet; Jesus Christ was a maverick in that he insisted the whole Law be obeyed.
And the lawyers made sure He was executed for it.
When McCain got the nomination, I joked with my co-workers: "So the Republicans have imploded. Next?"
And Obama got the nomination.
I told my family, "I have yet to see anything I don't like about Sarah Palin. I wouldn't mind seeing her running with John McCain."
And McCain picked her.
I need to keep my mouth shut. I might get us all into a lot of trouble.
In Dr. King's speech 45 years ago, he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
The Man Who Would Be Messiah rejects that dream by attempting to use government censorship against those who are trying to do exactly that, with him. He and his supporters make accusations of racism, where there is none. He expects the color of his skin to be the basis upon which we judge him.
That alone speaks volumes about his character.
And he has the raw chutzpah to make the speech of his lifetime, on the anniversary of the speech of Dr. King's lifetime.
Words fail to express the loathing I feel right now.
I no longer support the schemes of Intelligent Design, or its primary proponents, the Discovery Institute. "Intelligent Design" is a term coined specifically to hide the political agenda behind it: getting it taught in public schools, using taxpayer dollars, in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Just as "pro-choice" isn't about "choice," but is all about doing as many abortions as possible, "intelligent design" isn't about science.
Paris still insists that emasculation and infantilization is the wave of the future.
I'll be more than happy to wave "good-bye" to this:
They don't even succeed at being funny. They're still just every bit as pathetic as they were three years ago.
When John McCain got the Republican nod, I made the following off-handed comment:
"Okay, so the Republicans have pretty well imploded. Next?"
I was only kidding! Okay? How was I supposed to know Barack Hussein Obama would make it this far?
It is now a federal crime to tamper with so-called "wetlands" (which can actually be dry most of the year).
But guess what happens if you don't mow your lawn?
Some issues aren't resolved by a popular vote: Mom says teacher let classmates vote autistic son out of class.
How can five-year-olds as a group know the difference between "the right thing" and "what I want"? Aren't the adults supposed to be teaching kindergarteners about that?
Oh, sorry. I forgot. Teaching right and wrong isn't the schools' job any more.
In this case, though, it's the adults, and not just the teachers, who refuse to get a clue:
[T]he state attorney's office concluded the matter did not meet the criteria for emotional child abuse, so no criminal charges will be filed, Steele said.
An adult just told a 5-year-old boy with cognitive issues that "nobody likes you." How on God's green earth does that not rise to the level of child abuse? And how is it that the chief law enforcers in Florida can't see that?
Oh, right, they aren't pursuing "the right thing," just "what they want."
Update 2008-05-30: And another vicious teacher in Indiana. I guess such evil is appropriate for my 666th post.
I am up waaaaaay too late doing this, but it just chaps my a$%: Hillary plays the "think of the children!" card, B. Hussein Obama tries to claim that Iraq posed no threat.
How many times must I repeat myself? Iraq was every bit the threat Afghanistan was. From CNN's own archives, February 13, 1999:
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
The plain fact is, Saddam Hussein had no interest in being a civilized player on the world stage, and actually desired to be an uncivilized player. To that end, he was willing to play host to al-Qaeda's well-heeled head (and to hell with his own people subjects) in order to antagonize the West, especially the United States, after such a humiliating rout from Kuwait.
Further, Hillary's husband knew the danger Iraq posed:
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
For B. Hussein Obama to claim that Iraq posed no threat is worse than ignorance of history. It is paving the way for the next terrorist attack on the United States.
Hillary knows that her proximity to history, coupled with her "representation" of the state most victimized on 9/11, makes withdrawal from Iraq politically very dangerous to her campaign. So she turns to the fear-mongering appeal to "think of the children!" She wants the United Nations village, not the parents, to raise the children, remember? The children's parents don't matter to her... except on Election Day.
These two are so incompetent in their campaigning, I wouldn't trust them to close the door in winter, let alone protect the freest people in history.
Some students from Franciscan University got Bill Clinton to expose his moral vacuity a couple days ago. I especially love the part where he tries to use "political will" to justify abortion-on-demand, as if these little things like "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it.
Via Drudge: Hillary Goes Canvassing
And she let her anti-male sexism slip out a bit in the 23rd paragraph:
"No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.
Once again, special treatment for women. One must wonder how many self-hating males were there, cheering her on.
The headline says it all:
Kerry says he’ll be ready next time
I can't help but think of the line, "I'll get you, Gadget, next time."
During the PR push for the release of K-PAX , Kevin Spacey got many questions about his politics. (This was less than a year after the Florida 2000 election debacle.) He declined to answer, claiming that "the less the public knows about me as a person, the more effective I am as an actor."
I guess his career is heading down the toilet, if he no longer wants to hide his sympathies: Kevin Spacey meets with Chavez - Yahoo! News.
"You can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses," and Sean Penn and Danny Glover make for truly interesting "company."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
But you're looking for work in order to pay for health insurance. If you can't afford it, and the insurance is cut off, how are you going to get work under Hillary's ill-conceived socialist utopia?
A Nebraska state senator has decided to "sue God" in court, making all kinds of wild accusations against Him. Ostensibly, he's trying to make "a point about frivolous lawsuits," but the sound bite I heard with him on the radio puts the lie to that. He said, with a microphone in his face, that Christians are using the courts to push a "bigoted" agenda. I guess he hasn't looked in the mirror lately.
But the stickiest thing about it is, wasn't God already tried and executed 2,000 years ago? How can Chambers bring Him up on charges again?
Or maybe Chambers is just another anti-Christian twit who refuses to recognize God's triumph over death, against which even Chambers himself is powerless.
With the many calls to "never forget," I want to add our gratitude to those gracious Canucks who opened their homes on 9/11.
When our citizens and visitors were denied entry to the USA, even while they were in mid-air, they were forced to land in Canada. As it became obvious that they were, at least temporarily, homeless and needful, citizens of Canada took them in, fed them, sheltered them, washed their clothes and tended their children, until they could return home.
Canada embraced those whom we could not. I remember this. I will not forget.
To those Canadians, I say: Thank you, from the bottom of our national heart.
Fred Dalton Thompson has finally announced: he's running.
When he said, "every silver lining has a cloud," he basically got my vote. It's Fred '08 or nothing for me, less on issues, more on wavelength.
Where is he on the issues? So far, I haven't heard or seen anything I disagree with him on. And frankly, of the other candidates I've been able to follow (Rudy, Mitt, McCain), none of them seem to know how or when to present a poker face the way Fred does. In fact, I think that's Rudy's biggest weakness: his righteous anger toward the supporters of 9/11 is right, but not for a sitting President. His reactions to the House of Saud and Ron Paul demonstrate this. I like Rudy, and overall I think he's a great guy, but the man's best qualities are better focused domestically, not internationally. Fred, being the actor, and having that laid-back Southern "them's the facts, Jack" approach, will be more solid and less sway-able in dealings with foreign governments, I think.
But that's just me.
England is one of the most heavily-monitored Western societies, but that didn't stop terrorists from planting two bombs in London yesterday.
Click to read the full posting.
On another blog discussion, stem-cell research came up as a "peripheral issue" in the current too-early presidential campaign season. It isn't peripheral to me, but rather one facet of the core issue: Life, the first "unalienable right" named in the Declaration of Independence.
Who supports, values, and cherishes Life?
Who denigrates, devalues, and disdains it?
And who supports them?
And who opposes them?
These questions clarify things for me, lots.
It's interesting that those who denigrate Life, and those who denigrate the freedoms we enjoy in the USA, often run parallel and about one millimeter apart. Not always, but too often to be attributed to "statistical error."
Life. It's a beautiful thing.
Congressional Democrats seem to prefer mediocrity over achievement. At least, according to Harry Reid:
"We set the bar too high."
So they want to lower it. That says it all.
I knew there had to be a hole in this case big enough to fit my car: Airport battles some Muslim cabbies
MINNEAPOLIS - Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties — including suspension of an airport taxi license — to Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers toting alcohol or service dogs...
Airports Commissioner Bert McKasy said the issue raised by Muslim cab drivers who say that carrying alcohol or dogs, including those that help people with disabilities, violates religious beliefs is "unfortunate."
If mere proximity to dogs is a sin in Islam, someone needs to tell some Middle Eastern nomads about this. The PBS show Nature showed a nomad with a dog on a leash in this week's episode Dogs That Changed the World: The Rise of the Dog. The clip was about 5 seconds long, roughly 20 minutes into the program.
(Update 29-Apr: The breed in question is the saluki, a sight hound, the ancestor of the modern greyhound and whippet. Part 2 of the program, Dogs that Changed the World: Dogs by Design had an extended segment on the saluki starting about 7 minutes into the program.)
I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood (or their mouthpieces, the Muslim American Society) care about the obvious truth. Using taqiyya (lying to the infidel) as their justification, they will make any claim they want about their religious beliefs, saying they are "oppressed" because we don't tolerate their intolerant ways. To them, it's irrelevant that their Muslim brothers in the Middle East have no problem keeping dogs around.
Fortunately, reasonable minds have prevailed for the time being, so the nomads will be allowed to use the taxis at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
I should have predicted this. The Scooter Libby Pardon Brigade is swinging into action, and the East Coast press corps is issuing lectures on why I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be left high and dry.
Click to read the full posting.
Hillary Clinton said this:
We need to have additional stem cell lines in order to pursue the promising avenues for research. I'm worried that the President has signaled he intends to veto this legislation, the first veto that he will use since he's been President.
Hillary Clinton also said this:
How can we say everything is fine... when we face the real threat of climate change, which is tinkering with God's creation?
Well? Which is it, Mrs. Clinton? Should we tinker, or not?
If, as the famous quote goes, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism," then I will prove my patriotism by dissenting.
Click to read the full posting.
5 awards, including the Best Record, Best Album (what's the difference?), and Best Song. The Grammys either have forgotten or just don't care.
I once "overheard" (indirectly) an immigrant from Uganda, when asked why the USA did so little to stop the genocide under Idi Amin. He laughed and said,
"Because we had no oil!"
I think the people of South Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Haiti, Bosnia, and Afghanistan might disagree.
Here are two quotes from NOW's homepage, copied as I type this:
Decades from now, when this country finally catches up with the rest of the developed world with regard to women's rights, we will look back on the Bush presidency as a temporary detour from our long history of building democracy one right and one freedom at a time.
New faces, new leadership, and renewed hope for equality, fairness, peace and prosperity are on the horizon, and NOW has our "to do" list ready.
In fact, these two quotes come as excerpts from the top two links in their "current articles" list. But with regard to today's horrible news from Jordan:
AMMAN, Jordan - A Jordanian man fatally shot his 17-year-old daughter whom he suspected of having sex despite a medical exam that proved her chastity, an official said Thursday. The man surrendered to police hours after the killing, saying he had done it for family honor....
The father shot the girl four times in the head on Tuesday. On Wednesday, an autopsy was performed that again showed "she was still a virgin," the pathologist said.
Where is NOW's strongly-worded condemnation of such misogyny? Why are they taking so long? What are they afraid of?
Somehow, "all of the above" doesn't feel like the right answer here. In fact, none of them carries the right weight, because
Human rights mean nothing to them, except for the defeat of capitalism and conservatism in general, and the Representative Republic established by the Constitution in particular. NOW doesn't care about elevating women's status and rights. Their philosophical ties to Communism just means they want to make everyone equal, even if it means equal in misery.
I just heard a little while ago that Paul Begala (not known for coherent thinking) takes offense at people calling his party the "Democrat Party," instead of the "Democratic Party," and the Congressional majority a "Democrat majority" (as President Bush referred to them in his State of the Union address last night). He was whining that "Democrat" is a noun, and refers to a person, not a party.
Given that the governing structure of their party has sacrificed all principles except death (of babies, the elderly, the ill, the oppressed, pro-freedom infidels), is it any wonder the only rallying point remaining is the charisma of the public figures?
They are no longer a "party of democracy," but rather a "party of [self-proclaimed] democrats."
More castrated men on the fashion runways, this time in Milan.
Click to read the full posting.
Kofi Annan wants some back payments, claiming he's "entitled" to compensation for earlier work corrupting the United Nations.
The man is already swimming in cash from the Oil-For-Food scandals, and he wants more? Well, of course. Who do we think he is?
A slimy toad, that's who. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
All articles licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution2.5 License.
