Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
An Unqualified Failure
Speaking of Arizona, do you know who the previous Governor was? Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano. And as Governor, she did nothing about the open border. And by doing nothing, she made a bad situation worse. And with that undeniable blemish on her resume, Obama made her the Head of Homeland Security.
What could be the rationale for that decision? She showed no inclination or ability to secure her own state, and yet she rewarded with the job of securing the whole nation?
Couldn't they have made her the head of some backwater federal agency? How do you look at her credentials--and her undeniable failures-- and say "this is the best person to head Homeland Security"?
And from the other side of it, how could Napolitano even apply for the job? With the failure to secure the Arizona border on her resume, what was she thinking?
By any fair measure, she is not qualified to be the Head of Homeland Security. And we all saw that with the Christmas bomber. And with the Arizona border, we are seeing the mess she left behind.
What could be the rationale for that decision? She showed no inclination or ability to secure her own state, and yet she rewarded with the job of securing the whole nation?
Couldn't they have made her the head of some backwater federal agency? How do you look at her credentials--and her undeniable failures-- and say "this is the best person to head Homeland Security"?
And from the other side of it, how could Napolitano even apply for the job? With the failure to secure the Arizona border on her resume, what was she thinking?
By any fair measure, she is not qualified to be the Head of Homeland Security. And we all saw that with the Christmas bomber. And with the Arizona border, we are seeing the mess she left behind.
The Socialist Does Not Fall Far From The ACORN
Washington Post: Touring the Midwest, President Obama said he was "very pleased" a deal had been reached, and he criticized Wall Street lobbyists for trying to dilute the bill's most stringent provisions. Obama said he did not "begrudge" wealth that is "fairly earned." But in a departure from his prepared remarks, he added, "I think at some point you have made enough money."
When the man wanders too far from the Teleprompter this is what happens. The true socialist comes out.
When the most powerful person in the world says that "at some point, you have made enough money " that is something we should all pay close attention to.
I have an idea. Since the man is very earnest about people making too much money (he did not appoint a pay czar for nothing) why not have him replace David Stern in 2012?
The NBA already has a salary cap, and it is full of people who have made lots of money. He can tell Lebron he has made enough money.
When the man wanders too far from the Teleprompter this is what happens. The true socialist comes out.
When the most powerful person in the world says that "at some point, you have made enough money " that is something we should all pay close attention to.
I have an idea. Since the man is very earnest about people making too much money (he did not appoint a pay czar for nothing) why not have him replace David Stern in 2012?
The NBA already has a salary cap, and it is full of people who have made lots of money. He can tell Lebron he has made enough money.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
4 out of 1,400
From the Daily News:
The Education Department overhauled its method for rating principals last year - and still only found four in the whole system who failed to meet standards.
Only four. And there are 1,400 principals in the system. And this is after the city implemented reforms in how it rates principals. How do you like that for accountability? What exactly do you have to do to get a bad rating as a principal in New York? You probably have to do something crazy to get on that list, like wear a "Sarah Palin in 2012" button. That certainly would create a hostile learning environment.
The Education Department overhauled its method for rating principals last year - and still only found four in the whole system who failed to meet standards.
Only four. And there are 1,400 principals in the system. And this is after the city implemented reforms in how it rates principals. How do you like that for accountability? What exactly do you have to do to get a bad rating as a principal in New York? You probably have to do something crazy to get on that list, like wear a "Sarah Palin in 2012" button. That certainly would create a hostile learning environment.
Mexico: Do As We Say; Not As We Do
Michelle Malkin has a great column on how Mexico treats its immigrants. Baldman will list Malkin's points followed by his own comments in italics:
The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” Sounds like Hitler.
If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. So Mexico bars: poor people, sick people, crazy people as well as protesters and criminals. Getting into Mexico is harder than getting into Harvard.
Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care. Can we pass this law in America....please?
Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Where is Amnesty International when you need them?
Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. So that is where Arizona got it from!
The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” Sounds like Hitler.
If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. So Mexico bars: poor people, sick people, crazy people as well as protesters and criminals. Getting into Mexico is harder than getting into Harvard.
Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care. Can we pass this law in America....please?
Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Where is Amnesty International when you need them?
Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. So that is where Arizona got it from!
Will of the People
George Will on Arizona's immigration law:
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
They Lie. What Else Is New?
Repeat after me the liberal mantra: Never let the truth get in the way of a good victimization narrative. If you listen to liberals, the new immigration law has turned Arizona into a sun tanned version of Nazi Germany. "The police will be able to stop every Latino just for being Latino!" they wail.
What nonsense. The Arizona immigration law DOES NO SUCH THING.
What it does allow is if the police detain someone because they have violated some other law, they could then inquire as to the person's legal status.
Walking down the street and not committing a crime? Then the police cannot stop you under the Arizona law. But if you walk down the street and mug someone? If the police detain you for the mugging, than they have the right to ask about your legal status.
When you see they way they react, doesn't it seem like liberals are incapable of telling the truth?
But you don't have to believe me on this. Check out Byron York who talked to Professor Kris Kobach. And Kobach knows what the law permits. Why? Because he helped draft it:
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"
Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."
As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.
For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.
But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.
What nonsense. The Arizona immigration law DOES NO SUCH THING.
What it does allow is if the police detain someone because they have violated some other law, they could then inquire as to the person's legal status.
Walking down the street and not committing a crime? Then the police cannot stop you under the Arizona law. But if you walk down the street and mug someone? If the police detain you for the mugging, than they have the right to ask about your legal status.
When you see they way they react, doesn't it seem like liberals are incapable of telling the truth?
But you don't have to believe me on this. Check out Byron York who talked to Professor Kris Kobach. And Kobach knows what the law permits. Why? Because he helped draft it:
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"
Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."
As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.
For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.
But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.
Stoop Dreams: Arizona
Mister President, Mister Immigration Man,
Let me in, sweetie, to your fair land.- "Rip This Joint"-Rolling Stones
Things are much too divisive in this country. I think the time has come where we focus on things that unite us as Americans. How about we all get together under a big tent?
One thing that unites us is homosexual marriage. We are united as a nation in being against it. I say that only because it has been put to vote via the referendum process in 31 states. In all 31 states the people have voted to not permit homosexual marriage. Think about that: 31 for 31. Even Steve Nash can't match that from the free throw line.
Another thing that unites us is immigration. As a nation, we are against amnesty for illegal aliens. And we want our immigration laws enforced. That is not just me speaking; poll after poll show that between 70%-75% of Americans want our borders secure in addition to not rewarding illegal aliens with citizenship. 7 out of 10 or 3 out of 4 is a pretty strong majority, no?
Which brings us to Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico. The Mexican government has a very unusual policy: it exports its citizens to America. Whether we want them to or not. And as I stated above, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want Mexico to engage in this practice.
But it would be silly of us to rely on Mexico to stop this practice. After all, the Mexican government does not represent us. It represents Mexicans, and rightfully so.
So we look to our government to enforce our laws that reflect the will of our people. And we have those laws on the books. Good solid laws that prohibit unlawful immigration into this country. But alas, laws without enforcement are like Leon Spinks: toothless.
For the past 20 years, the federal government has enforced our immigration laws with the same resolve of OJ Simpson vowing to find the real killer. Even Reagan was bad on this issue. Hey, even Ted Williams struck out every once in a while.
And as a result, our borders are defended so poorly, you would think that Mike D'Antoni was the head of the U.S. border patrol. As Dennis Miller says, go to the Mexican-Arizona border at midnight with night-vision goggles. It looks like the start of the Boston Marathon with ponchos.
And so the people of Arizona have waited patiently for the federal government to enforce our laws. They have waited through the unrelenting border-related crime, the massive strain on its social services, and the unforgivable undercutting of the wages of Arizona natives-especially cruel at a time when unemployment is hovering around 10%.
But sometimes when your house is on fire, you can't wait for the fire department to put it out-especially when the fire department has made it clear that your house is not a priority.
So Arizona has done a sensible thing: it has passed a state law making it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally as well as allowing state law enforcement officials to ask people for identification to prove that they are in the U.S. legally.
Because liberals see illegal aliens as "soon to be registered Democrats", they have gone--surprise, surprise-- bat-shit since Governor Brewer has signed the bill into law.
But think about it: if our laws make it illegal for someone to enter the country what can be wrong with a law...making it illegal to be in the country? Listen, if Arizona passed a law that was in contradiction with federal law, the liberals would be right on this one. But this law just puts some teeth into the federal laws that are already on the books.
Liberals- who are issued smoke and mirrors as soon as they register as Democrats- say that this law will lead to civil rights violations. Don't you love it when the party of racial, ethnic and gender preferences wrap themselves in the mantle of civil rights?
So let's talk about civil rights. Liberals actually think that asking somebody for identification while they are running across the border is a civil rights violation. If they had their way--and they probably will by the way--the law would require that the same illegal alien receive health care, welfare, housing, food stamps and an ACLU card as soon as he set foot on American soil.
Speaking of civil rights, I was just wondering; how do you acquire them if you gained entry into America by violating our immigration laws? Isn't it like going to Macy's and demanding an employee discount while working at Walmart? A bank robber can't expect the bank to issue him a loan, right?
So far, Al Sharpton has said he will lead a protest in Arizona, and San Francisco has called for a boycott.
Let the good Reverend go down to Arizona. This is the man who led a protest at Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem saying that he did not want any white interlopers in Harlem. Later on, one of the protesters burned the place down, killing 7 people along the way.
So the Sharpton Doctrine is This: White Americans in Harlem-Get The Fuck Out; Illegal Aliens in Arizona- We Welcome You With Open Arms.
Let him lead the way. We can all use his moral instruction on how to treat others.
As for the San Francisco Boycott, all I can say is: PLEASE MEAN IT.
If Arizona cracks down on illegal immigration, and liberals promise to boycott the state, the Stoop will one day be in the desert sand.
Let me in, sweetie, to your fair land.- "Rip This Joint"-Rolling Stones
Things are much too divisive in this country. I think the time has come where we focus on things that unite us as Americans. How about we all get together under a big tent?
One thing that unites us is homosexual marriage. We are united as a nation in being against it. I say that only because it has been put to vote via the referendum process in 31 states. In all 31 states the people have voted to not permit homosexual marriage. Think about that: 31 for 31. Even Steve Nash can't match that from the free throw line.
Another thing that unites us is immigration. As a nation, we are against amnesty for illegal aliens. And we want our immigration laws enforced. That is not just me speaking; poll after poll show that between 70%-75% of Americans want our borders secure in addition to not rewarding illegal aliens with citizenship. 7 out of 10 or 3 out of 4 is a pretty strong majority, no?
Which brings us to Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico. The Mexican government has a very unusual policy: it exports its citizens to America. Whether we want them to or not. And as I stated above, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want Mexico to engage in this practice.
But it would be silly of us to rely on Mexico to stop this practice. After all, the Mexican government does not represent us. It represents Mexicans, and rightfully so.
So we look to our government to enforce our laws that reflect the will of our people. And we have those laws on the books. Good solid laws that prohibit unlawful immigration into this country. But alas, laws without enforcement are like Leon Spinks: toothless.
For the past 20 years, the federal government has enforced our immigration laws with the same resolve of OJ Simpson vowing to find the real killer. Even Reagan was bad on this issue. Hey, even Ted Williams struck out every once in a while.
And as a result, our borders are defended so poorly, you would think that Mike D'Antoni was the head of the U.S. border patrol. As Dennis Miller says, go to the Mexican-Arizona border at midnight with night-vision goggles. It looks like the start of the Boston Marathon with ponchos.
And so the people of Arizona have waited patiently for the federal government to enforce our laws. They have waited through the unrelenting border-related crime, the massive strain on its social services, and the unforgivable undercutting of the wages of Arizona natives-especially cruel at a time when unemployment is hovering around 10%.
But sometimes when your house is on fire, you can't wait for the fire department to put it out-especially when the fire department has made it clear that your house is not a priority.
So Arizona has done a sensible thing: it has passed a state law making it a crime to be in the U.S. illegally as well as allowing state law enforcement officials to ask people for identification to prove that they are in the U.S. legally.
Because liberals see illegal aliens as "soon to be registered Democrats", they have gone--surprise, surprise-- bat-shit since Governor Brewer has signed the bill into law.
But think about it: if our laws make it illegal for someone to enter the country what can be wrong with a law...making it illegal to be in the country? Listen, if Arizona passed a law that was in contradiction with federal law, the liberals would be right on this one. But this law just puts some teeth into the federal laws that are already on the books.
Liberals- who are issued smoke and mirrors as soon as they register as Democrats- say that this law will lead to civil rights violations. Don't you love it when the party of racial, ethnic and gender preferences wrap themselves in the mantle of civil rights?
So let's talk about civil rights. Liberals actually think that asking somebody for identification while they are running across the border is a civil rights violation. If they had their way--and they probably will by the way--the law would require that the same illegal alien receive health care, welfare, housing, food stamps and an ACLU card as soon as he set foot on American soil.
Speaking of civil rights, I was just wondering; how do you acquire them if you gained entry into America by violating our immigration laws? Isn't it like going to Macy's and demanding an employee discount while working at Walmart? A bank robber can't expect the bank to issue him a loan, right?
So far, Al Sharpton has said he will lead a protest in Arizona, and San Francisco has called for a boycott.
Let the good Reverend go down to Arizona. This is the man who led a protest at Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem saying that he did not want any white interlopers in Harlem. Later on, one of the protesters burned the place down, killing 7 people along the way.
So the Sharpton Doctrine is This: White Americans in Harlem-Get The Fuck Out; Illegal Aliens in Arizona- We Welcome You With Open Arms.
Let him lead the way. We can all use his moral instruction on how to treat others.
As for the San Francisco Boycott, all I can say is: PLEASE MEAN IT.
If Arizona cracks down on illegal immigration, and liberals promise to boycott the state, the Stoop will one day be in the desert sand.
Monday, April 26, 2010
He's A Divider
From the Volokh Conspiracy website:
UPDATE: Relatedly, I haven’t heard any prominent “tea partier” make anything remotely resembling this blatant appeal to racial demography, courtesy of President Obama, in which he told activists that “it will be up to you to make sure that the young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.”
UPDATE: Relatedly, I haven’t heard any prominent “tea partier” make anything remotely resembling this blatant appeal to racial demography, courtesy of President Obama, in which he told activists that “it will be up to you to make sure that the young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.”
Listen to how about 2 minutes in when Obama starts his roll call of ethnic/racial groups he throws on the fake Spanish accent when he says: "Latinos".
There's no room on the Stoop for politicians who appeal to voters based on race, gender or ethnicity.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Hello Inmates, Go Run The Asylum
Remember those H & R Block commercials where they would say "Here is reason # 1245 why you should use H & R Block? The same concept can be used to show how our public school systems are harmful for children, and exist not to educate children, but to provide union jobs.
Here is reason # 3,245:
New York City is looking to layoff 6,000 teachers. Like any other entity, you would think they would actually be able to choose who they want to layoff, right? And that criteria would consist of keeping the best teachers, and laying off the worst.
You would think.
But in the madness that is the public school system, you would be wrong. Check this out from the NYT's:
This month city officials persuaded lawmakers in Albany to introduce a bill that would allow the city to decide which teachers to let go, although its chances of passing are slim.
The union decides who gets laid off. The union decides who stays. And they say last ones hired, first ones laid off.
You could be the greatest teacher in New York City, and it would not matter. If you have been in the system a short time-you will be gone. Conversely, you could be the worst teacher, someone who should not be allowed anywhere near a classroom-and you are protected.
There is no individual assessment. None.
That's the way it is with the Teacher's Union. There is no accountability to the parents. No accountability to their employer-NYC.
And if that does not tell you that the public school system exists SOLELY to provide union jobs for adults, you must be pretty fucking stupid.
If you had to start from scratch, and your goal was to come up with an educational system that would be the most harmful for children, all you would need to do is take the collective bargaining agreement between the Teacher's Union & the City of New York.
Give the parents a choice to get their kids out of these hellholes.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
They Deserve Each Other
The Yankees will be visiting the White House on Monday to celebrate their 2009 World Series victory. George Steinbrenner has told friends its going to be a great honor to finally meet President Hoover.
By the way, I heard that A-Rod will ask Obama if the health care law covers steroids.
Yankee GM Brian Cashman should have a lot to talk about with Obama. They both spend other people's money recklessly, with no concern for budgets.
By the way, I heard that A-Rod will ask Obama if the health care law covers steroids.
Yankee GM Brian Cashman should have a lot to talk about with Obama. They both spend other people's money recklessly, with no concern for budgets.
Illegal Elian 10 Years Later
It's been 10 years since the Elian Gonzalez thing went down. It was the first time in American history that liberals wanted strict enforcement of our immigration laws. There argument was: "How dare we deprive that child of a proper communist upbringing?" As you can see from the article below, Elian's brain has been fully -washed in communist dogma. If that was the goal, we could have sent him to NYC, Washington or San Francisco instead of shipping him back to Havana at gunpoint.
How awesome would it be if the kid who came here for freedom and a better life grows up to be the next brutal dictator of Cuba?
Now 16, Elian Gonzalez shown at Cuba youth meeting -
How awesome would it be if the kid who came here for freedom and a better life grows up to be the next brutal dictator of Cuba?
Now 16, Elian Gonzalez shown at Cuba youth meeting -
Why Giving KSM A Trial Takes Away Your Rights
My Pal Andrew gives an excellent analysis below of why trying that vermin, KSM, in Federal Court would erode the Constitutional Rights of ALL AMERICANS.
Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York Federal Court Will Destroy Your Constitutional Rights:
Deborah Sherman, a “journalist” for the New York Times magazine, recently interviewed a Republican Senator. In response to the Senator's question to Sherman as to why journalist Sherman thought foreign terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) should be tried as criminal defendants and thereby getting all of the Constitutional rights and benefit of a United States citizen, journalist Sherman was happy to say we "should take the moral high ground." Forgetting about the fact that the journalist shouldn'’t be giving her opinions anyway, I had to ask myself, what the heck does “take the moral high ground” mean in this context?
Well folks, there, in a phrase, is the liberal analysis for you – an unexplained, fuzzy-wuzzy, feel good emotional statement devoid of any thought or intellectual analysis. As I explain more fully below, however, it is these simple emotional platitudes such as those from Ms. Sherman and ones recently echoed by Attorney General Eric Holder (comparing war criminal KSM to a serial killer) that help explain why our Constitutional rights are quickly fading away.
The fact is, however, that a lot has been written about decision by the Government to try KSM in criminal court in New York City as opposed to trying him before a military tribunal. Polls have been taken which show a substantial majority of Americans oppose the decision and many pundits and commentators criticized the decision. Even liberal New Yorkers are against it. Critics ranging from 9/11 victims’ families to Mayor Bloomberg and others, point to various unanswered questions and to flaws in the decision-making process, including the following:
(1) The reckless expenditure of $100 million or more of taxpayer dollars for a trial of one person where a military tribunal is not only available but specifically authorized by an act of Congress; (2) Trying KSM in New York will give KSM a terrorist propaganda platform; (3) The trial will greatly and unnecessarily upset an already scarred civilian population; (4) What will the United States do if KSM is acquitted by a “jury of his peers” or if he gets off on a technicality, and then he walks smugly, triumphantly and victoriously down the Courthouse steps for all the news cameras to see?; (5) Why on Earth would the Government risk losing a criminal trial when KSM, through a lawyer, has reportedly already offered to plead guilty before a military tribunal?; (6) Given the dozens of prior trials of spies and war criminals before military tribunals and given the specific Congressional mandate such tribunals for terrorists, it is Constitutional and more appropriate to try KSM and other terrorists of war crimes; (7) KSM may embarrass the United States or otherwise compromise National security by successfully by employing any criminal defendant’s right to access relevant evidence, which may include evidence of the CIA's tactics and intelligence; (9) The likelihood of a conviction and application is not high given that it takes only 1 juror out of 12 to result in a mistrial or to override application of the death penalty; and (10) Terrorists may use the opportunity to once again target New York during the KSM trial.
Some or all of these criticisms may be indeed valid, but I believe the following additional and paramount concern has unfortunately been left out of the conversation and is certainly something that the esteemed Ms. Sherman and her like-minded friends probably haven’t even thought about: Trying KSM as a criminal defendant sets bad legal precedent which can erode our Constitutional rights.
What is legal precedent and why should we Americans care? In simple terms, precedent is a rule of law set by a Court by way of a decision or a ruling flowing from civil and criminal proceedings. Unless overturned by higher courts, these decisions and rulings establish legal authority that other judges are obligated to follow or, in some circumstances, constitute authority that judges should be persuaded by. Precedent can, of course, be a good thing, because it helps a judge come to a decision if one his or her sister judge’s has already analyzed similar facts and issues and provided an answer. Thus, precedent helps establish the way future courts must or should rule when faced with similar facts or issues.
An easy to understand example of precedent is the "Miranda Warnings", which we all know are now constitutionally required statements that any police officers must tell a suspected criminal when he or she is in police custody, is being questioned or is arrested. But the “Miranda Warnings” did not come out of thin air. The warnings were first articulated in a decision by a court—the United States Supreme Court, in fact—and since that decision, every police officer in our great country has had to read any American his or her Miranda Warnings or risk having any evidence from their interrogations not being admitted in Court.
Therefore, with the idea of “precedent” in mind, it is clear that trying KSM as a criminal defendant, and guarantying to him all Constitutional protections afforded to you and me as Americans will lead to a number horrible rulings from the Court which could have the impact of damaging all of our rights. Here is how the decision to try KSM in could impact you and me:
1. The Loss of the Right to A Speedy Trial: Under the Constitution, we all enjoy a right to have our case heard by a jury of our peers, and to have it heard quickly. Here’s how the exchange between, KSM, through his Court appointed lawyer(s) (paid for by you and me) and the Judge will go as to this right which KSM will seek to cloak himself under:
KSM Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in Gitmo for almost a decade without any hearings or any rights! Dismiss his case pursuant to the United States Constitution and all of the cases cited in my legal brief which says that my client must go free!”
Judge: [Thinking that he can’t dismiss the case because the public will freak out] says, “Uhhhm, well I am going to deny your request because 9 years does not deprive the right to a speedy trial in this case.”
The public exhales because KSM doesn’t get off on a technicality. Now fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something. The government decides to throw you in a pit for nine years without being able to access the Courts or a lawyer. Here’s how the motion to dismiss your case might go on the ground that you were deprived of a right to speedy trial.
Your Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in a pit for years without the access to the Courts! This is un-American!!! You must dismiss this case.”
The Prosecutor: “Judge, you should know that in the case of United States v. KSM, Judge So-and-So clearly held that it was not unconstitutional to hold someone for almost a decade. That case is precedent and you should follow the holding of that case.”
See what I’m saying now? Let’s try another one.
2. The Loss of the Right Not To Be Tortured And then Tried:
Clearly, if you are arrested and the government decides to spend years torturing you before appointing you a lawyer or otherwise giving you access to the Courts, your case should be dismissed based on numerous grounds and the government should be sanctioned. Indeed, any Judge would be horrified to learn that the government abused its police powers this way to any American. But now here we have KSM who was water boarded dozens of times after being “arrested.” President Obama has officially declared that water boarding is torture. Now let’s go to the hearing:
KSM’s Layer: “Judge, my client has been serially and repeatedly tortured by the government. He has been water boarded. He has been put in a box with ants. He has been deprived of food and water. This case must be dismissed on numerous grounds and I request that, not only should the government be sanctioned, those responsible should be put in jail, including President Bush!”
The Judge: [Thinking to himself, “Uh oh. What to do? I can’t let this guy go.”] Sir, I am going to agree with you that what the government did is horrible and I apologize for that, but I am not going to dismiss the case. However, I will say that any statement made during those torture sessions will not be evidence in this case.”
KSM’s Lawyer: “Are you serious, Judge?”
Again, fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something and now think about what the government can get away with doing to you and will be able to later argue is “Constitutional” because the KSM Judge let it happen. This is getting scary, right?
3. The Right to A Fair Trial/Change of Venue
Any criminal defendant can have the place of his trial changed where the local population is already prejudiced against him based on media and other publicly known facts. So where does the government decide to try KSM? Why, in New York! Brilliant. Can you name any local population that has more prejudice against a criminal defendant than New Yorkers have against the 9/11 terrorists? And if and when the Judge refuses to change the venue to another courthouse, think about any criminal case in the future that wants to change venue. It won’t happen because of the precedent set in the KSM trial.
4. The Right to A Lawyer:
The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to a lawyer following an arrest. KSM, however, was not given access to a lawyer for years and years. Playing out the above Courtroom scenario, the Judge will once again refuse to dismiss the case on the grounds that KSM was not given access to a lawyer. Thanks again, we now have another ruling that says that the Constitution does not give you the right to a lawyer for years! Woohoo!!
Of course, I could go on and on and, surely, people who disagree with the above will try to point out that future Judges would not have to follow the KSM judge’s rulings because, I guess, KSM is a terrorist or something. But such superficial arguments fail to take into account the truth that once precedent has been set, it is a guidepost for future cases.
Now, where should KSM be tried again?
Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York Federal Court Will Destroy Your Constitutional Rights:
Deborah Sherman, a “journalist” for the New York Times magazine, recently interviewed a Republican Senator. In response to the Senator's question to Sherman as to why journalist Sherman thought foreign terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) should be tried as criminal defendants and thereby getting all of the Constitutional rights and benefit of a United States citizen, journalist Sherman was happy to say we "should take the moral high ground." Forgetting about the fact that the journalist shouldn'’t be giving her opinions anyway, I had to ask myself, what the heck does “take the moral high ground” mean in this context?
Well folks, there, in a phrase, is the liberal analysis for you – an unexplained, fuzzy-wuzzy, feel good emotional statement devoid of any thought or intellectual analysis. As I explain more fully below, however, it is these simple emotional platitudes such as those from Ms. Sherman and ones recently echoed by Attorney General Eric Holder (comparing war criminal KSM to a serial killer) that help explain why our Constitutional rights are quickly fading away.
The fact is, however, that a lot has been written about decision by the Government to try KSM in criminal court in New York City as opposed to trying him before a military tribunal. Polls have been taken which show a substantial majority of Americans oppose the decision and many pundits and commentators criticized the decision. Even liberal New Yorkers are against it. Critics ranging from 9/11 victims’ families to Mayor Bloomberg and others, point to various unanswered questions and to flaws in the decision-making process, including the following:
(1) The reckless expenditure of $100 million or more of taxpayer dollars for a trial of one person where a military tribunal is not only available but specifically authorized by an act of Congress; (2) Trying KSM in New York will give KSM a terrorist propaganda platform; (3) The trial will greatly and unnecessarily upset an already scarred civilian population; (4) What will the United States do if KSM is acquitted by a “jury of his peers” or if he gets off on a technicality, and then he walks smugly, triumphantly and victoriously down the Courthouse steps for all the news cameras to see?; (5) Why on Earth would the Government risk losing a criminal trial when KSM, through a lawyer, has reportedly already offered to plead guilty before a military tribunal?; (6) Given the dozens of prior trials of spies and war criminals before military tribunals and given the specific Congressional mandate such tribunals for terrorists, it is Constitutional and more appropriate to try KSM and other terrorists of war crimes; (7) KSM may embarrass the United States or otherwise compromise National security by successfully by employing any criminal defendant’s right to access relevant evidence, which may include evidence of the CIA's tactics and intelligence; (9) The likelihood of a conviction and application is not high given that it takes only 1 juror out of 12 to result in a mistrial or to override application of the death penalty; and (10) Terrorists may use the opportunity to once again target New York during the KSM trial.
Some or all of these criticisms may be indeed valid, but I believe the following additional and paramount concern has unfortunately been left out of the conversation and is certainly something that the esteemed Ms. Sherman and her like-minded friends probably haven’t even thought about: Trying KSM as a criminal defendant sets bad legal precedent which can erode our Constitutional rights.
What is legal precedent and why should we Americans care? In simple terms, precedent is a rule of law set by a Court by way of a decision or a ruling flowing from civil and criminal proceedings. Unless overturned by higher courts, these decisions and rulings establish legal authority that other judges are obligated to follow or, in some circumstances, constitute authority that judges should be persuaded by. Precedent can, of course, be a good thing, because it helps a judge come to a decision if one his or her sister judge’s has already analyzed similar facts and issues and provided an answer. Thus, precedent helps establish the way future courts must or should rule when faced with similar facts or issues.
An easy to understand example of precedent is the "Miranda Warnings", which we all know are now constitutionally required statements that any police officers must tell a suspected criminal when he or she is in police custody, is being questioned or is arrested. But the “Miranda Warnings” did not come out of thin air. The warnings were first articulated in a decision by a court—the United States Supreme Court, in fact—and since that decision, every police officer in our great country has had to read any American his or her Miranda Warnings or risk having any evidence from their interrogations not being admitted in Court.
Therefore, with the idea of “precedent” in mind, it is clear that trying KSM as a criminal defendant, and guarantying to him all Constitutional protections afforded to you and me as Americans will lead to a number horrible rulings from the Court which could have the impact of damaging all of our rights. Here is how the decision to try KSM in could impact you and me:
1. The Loss of the Right to A Speedy Trial: Under the Constitution, we all enjoy a right to have our case heard by a jury of our peers, and to have it heard quickly. Here’s how the exchange between, KSM, through his Court appointed lawyer(s) (paid for by you and me) and the Judge will go as to this right which KSM will seek to cloak himself under:
KSM Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in Gitmo for almost a decade without any hearings or any rights! Dismiss his case pursuant to the United States Constitution and all of the cases cited in my legal brief which says that my client must go free!”
Judge: [Thinking that he can’t dismiss the case because the public will freak out] says, “Uhhhm, well I am going to deny your request because 9 years does not deprive the right to a speedy trial in this case.”
The public exhales because KSM doesn’t get off on a technicality. Now fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something. The government decides to throw you in a pit for nine years without being able to access the Courts or a lawyer. Here’s how the motion to dismiss your case might go on the ground that you were deprived of a right to speedy trial.
Your Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in a pit for years without the access to the Courts! This is un-American!!! You must dismiss this case.”
The Prosecutor: “Judge, you should know that in the case of United States v. KSM, Judge So-and-So clearly held that it was not unconstitutional to hold someone for almost a decade. That case is precedent and you should follow the holding of that case.”
See what I’m saying now? Let’s try another one.
2. The Loss of the Right Not To Be Tortured And then Tried:
Clearly, if you are arrested and the government decides to spend years torturing you before appointing you a lawyer or otherwise giving you access to the Courts, your case should be dismissed based on numerous grounds and the government should be sanctioned. Indeed, any Judge would be horrified to learn that the government abused its police powers this way to any American. But now here we have KSM who was water boarded dozens of times after being “arrested.” President Obama has officially declared that water boarding is torture. Now let’s go to the hearing:
KSM’s Layer: “Judge, my client has been serially and repeatedly tortured by the government. He has been water boarded. He has been put in a box with ants. He has been deprived of food and water. This case must be dismissed on numerous grounds and I request that, not only should the government be sanctioned, those responsible should be put in jail, including President Bush!”
The Judge: [Thinking to himself, “Uh oh. What to do? I can’t let this guy go.”] Sir, I am going to agree with you that what the government did is horrible and I apologize for that, but I am not going to dismiss the case. However, I will say that any statement made during those torture sessions will not be evidence in this case.”
KSM’s Lawyer: “Are you serious, Judge?”
Again, fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something and now think about what the government can get away with doing to you and will be able to later argue is “Constitutional” because the KSM Judge let it happen. This is getting scary, right?
3. The Right to A Fair Trial/Change of Venue
Any criminal defendant can have the place of his trial changed where the local population is already prejudiced against him based on media and other publicly known facts. So where does the government decide to try KSM? Why, in New York! Brilliant. Can you name any local population that has more prejudice against a criminal defendant than New Yorkers have against the 9/11 terrorists? And if and when the Judge refuses to change the venue to another courthouse, think about any criminal case in the future that wants to change venue. It won’t happen because of the precedent set in the KSM trial.
4. The Right to A Lawyer:
The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to a lawyer following an arrest. KSM, however, was not given access to a lawyer for years and years. Playing out the above Courtroom scenario, the Judge will once again refuse to dismiss the case on the grounds that KSM was not given access to a lawyer. Thanks again, we now have another ruling that says that the Constitution does not give you the right to a lawyer for years! Woohoo!!
Of course, I could go on and on and, surely, people who disagree with the above will try to point out that future Judges would not have to follow the KSM judge’s rulings because, I guess, KSM is a terrorist or something. But such superficial arguments fail to take into account the truth that once precedent has been set, it is a guidepost for future cases.
Now, where should KSM be tried again?
Dr Death
Some thoughts on the HBO movie on Jack Kevorkian, starring Al Pacino and premiering tonight on HBO:
1) Pacino says he performed extensive research in order to portray Dr. Death. That means he watched some old Larry King interviews and tried on some coke bottle glasses. Always remember acting is the most overrated profession in the world. Someone writes words for you, another person puts you in a costume, and they give you cue cards to read the words out loud. That about covers it.
2) When Dr. Jack was serving his sentence for killing people, the warden should have allowed him to perform the lethal injections for death row inmates. It could have saved the state some money.
3) Dr. Jack had a very unique medical practice. He would tell patients: "Take two of these, and you don't have to worry about calling me in the morning."
1) Pacino says he performed extensive research in order to portray Dr. Death. That means he watched some old Larry King interviews and tried on some coke bottle glasses. Always remember acting is the most overrated profession in the world. Someone writes words for you, another person puts you in a costume, and they give you cue cards to read the words out loud. That about covers it.
2) When Dr. Jack was serving his sentence for killing people, the warden should have allowed him to perform the lethal injections for death row inmates. It could have saved the state some money.
3) Dr. Jack had a very unique medical practice. He would tell patients: "Take two of these, and you don't have to worry about calling me in the morning."
Thursday, April 22, 2010
It's Too Easy....
Keith Olbermann announced that he is taking a few days off from his show to have a colonoscopy exam. It doesn't take a medical degree to know that the exam will reveal that the patient has his head up his ass.
Olberman Off Air: 'Colonscopy Time! Yay!'
Olberman Off Air: 'Colonscopy Time! Yay!'
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Oh, There Is A Litmus Test Alright
Obama came out today and said that he does not have a litmus test for abortion when it comes to replacing Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. That's a good one right there.
Sometimes you have to read between the TelePrompter lines. What he really meant is that the White House is screening every candidate and only the ones that support partial birth abortion until the fetus reaches kindergarten will have their resumes placed on the President's desk for review. And the president will choose from that rich and diverse spectrum of candidates.
Remember, this is the man who in the Senate voted against the appointments of Roberts & Alito and as president gave us the self -proclaimed "Wise One"--Sonia Sotomayor.
And saying Sotomayor is qualified and Alito is NOT is like saying Chris Duhon is a better point guard than Steve Nash.
Some truths are self evident.
Sometimes you have to read between the TelePrompter lines. What he really meant is that the White House is screening every candidate and only the ones that support partial birth abortion until the fetus reaches kindergarten will have their resumes placed on the President's desk for review. And the president will choose from that rich and diverse spectrum of candidates.
Remember, this is the man who in the Senate voted against the appointments of Roberts & Alito and as president gave us the self -proclaimed "Wise One"--Sonia Sotomayor.
And saying Sotomayor is qualified and Alito is NOT is like saying Chris Duhon is a better point guard than Steve Nash.
Some truths are self evident.
Another Voice On The Stoop
Baldman pal Andrew is a good friend of the Stoop. He's a lawyer who worked full time while attending law school at night. Andrew wrote the piece below as a reaction to the NYC doormen threatening to strike. Andrew raises an excellent question: why spend 8 years attending college and law school in the attempt to open your own door to the future when you can get a union job with great perks opening doors for others?
Momma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Lawyers
Last night, the doormen's union in New York was able to extract at 10 percent wage increase for their next contract period and without the doormen having to make any concessions as to their Cadillac, gold-plated health insurance plans, pension and other unheard of benefits. The New York Times reported that the average beginning doorman's salary package (including benefits) is currently $68,000 per year. This amount excludes other add-ons, such as overtime pay (double time and a half on holidays, etc.) and mandatory cash tips during the holidays (think they pay taxes on those tips?). Thus, a starting doorman in New York could theoretically make six figures if he or she really tried. The qualifications for being a doorman? A high school diploma. In essence, all you have to do to your employer (the building's owners) is to threaten a strike and, voila! you get raises! Similarly, recent reports show that the median salaries for federal employees, in virtually every category of job, are higher than their private sector counterparts. Of course, if you are a federal employee, you also get a fat pension, the above-mentioned Cadillac insurance plan for your entire family, and, it seams, a mandatory bad attitude towards citizens.
Not bad work in the "Great Recession" if you can get it, right? This leaves me thinking, why become a lawyer? According to most reports, the average lawyer in private practice makes $74, 684. I think that this number is inflated. The Great Recession has caused lawyers to take a huge hit in job losses, salary reductions, and in employer contributions to health plans. Of course, lawyers have no pensions. Lawyers also have to pay thousands of dollars for mandatory continuing legal education and bar fees. Lawyers notoriously work very long hours and, unlike doormen, don't get overtime. Moreover, in order to be a lawyer, one must pay for college, and law school, take and pass a very difficult exam, and pay a number of associated fees. Most lawyers graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now just imagine what would happen if a rank and file lawyer at a company went to his employer and did what the doormen did, "Give me mandatory salary increases for the next four years, mandatory bonus, full contributions to my health plan, and a pension or else I'll strike!" The answer is obvious: Goodbye and good luck!
Decades ago, Willie Nelson wrote a song, "Momma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys", and, instead, he wrote, they should grow up to be doctors and lawyers. Thinking about it now in 2010, who really wants to be doctor or lawyer when you can just graduate high school, be a unionized doorman or work for the feds?
My point is this: why work hard to educate yourself and get ahead in this country by becoming a lawyer or doctor if we are going to greatly penalize them? The class warfare continues.
Momma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Lawyers
Last night, the doormen's union in New York was able to extract at 10 percent wage increase for their next contract period and without the doormen having to make any concessions as to their Cadillac, gold-plated health insurance plans, pension and other unheard of benefits. The New York Times reported that the average beginning doorman's salary package (including benefits) is currently $68,000 per year. This amount excludes other add-ons, such as overtime pay (double time and a half on holidays, etc.) and mandatory cash tips during the holidays (think they pay taxes on those tips?). Thus, a starting doorman in New York could theoretically make six figures if he or she really tried. The qualifications for being a doorman? A high school diploma. In essence, all you have to do to your employer (the building's owners) is to threaten a strike and, voila! you get raises! Similarly, recent reports show that the median salaries for federal employees, in virtually every category of job, are higher than their private sector counterparts. Of course, if you are a federal employee, you also get a fat pension, the above-mentioned Cadillac insurance plan for your entire family, and, it seams, a mandatory bad attitude towards citizens.
Not bad work in the "Great Recession" if you can get it, right? This leaves me thinking, why become a lawyer? According to most reports, the average lawyer in private practice makes $74, 684. I think that this number is inflated. The Great Recession has caused lawyers to take a huge hit in job losses, salary reductions, and in employer contributions to health plans. Of course, lawyers have no pensions. Lawyers also have to pay thousands of dollars for mandatory continuing legal education and bar fees. Lawyers notoriously work very long hours and, unlike doormen, don't get overtime. Moreover, in order to be a lawyer, one must pay for college, and law school, take and pass a very difficult exam, and pay a number of associated fees. Most lawyers graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now just imagine what would happen if a rank and file lawyer at a company went to his employer and did what the doormen did, "Give me mandatory salary increases for the next four years, mandatory bonus, full contributions to my health plan, and a pension or else I'll strike!" The answer is obvious: Goodbye and good luck!
Decades ago, Willie Nelson wrote a song, "Momma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys", and, instead, he wrote, they should grow up to be doctors and lawyers. Thinking about it now in 2010, who really wants to be doctor or lawyer when you can just graduate high school, be a unionized doorman or work for the feds?
My point is this: why work hard to educate yourself and get ahead in this country by becoming a lawyer or doctor if we are going to greatly penalize them? The class warfare continues.
Never Give Them Up
A closer reading of the President's agreement with Russia on nuclear disarmament reveals that it is modeled on the "toys for guns" programs we used to have in NYC. Turn is your weapon, and the government gives you a nice toy.
Here is how every American President should respond when world leaders ask us to get rid of our nukes:
Putin: "We think you should dismantle."
American President: " Mr. President, why do you want me to criticize the Yankee Hall of Fame Centerfielder?"
It should not be in our vocabulary.
Here is how every American President should respond when world leaders ask us to get rid of our nukes:
Putin: "We think you should dismantle."
American President: " Mr. President, why do you want me to criticize the Yankee Hall of Fame Centerfielder?"
It should not be in our vocabulary.
Why They Lie
I just conducted an informal Stoop poll and the results are in.
Question: What or where is the safest place on Earth?
Answer: Wherever there is a Tea Party Rally.
Liberals have a funny trait: they create shit that is not there and ignore shit right in front of their face.
As we all know, there has not been ANY VIOLENCE at ANY TEA Party rally. Zero. It's so peaceful, its like being in Amish country-minus the carpentry.
And it drives the libs crazy.
So they talk about impending violence. Please. This is an old and tired tactic; they run this play more often than Phil Jackson tells the Lakers "get the ball to Kobe".
It's called the Dehumanization of Dissent.
Here's how the game is played:
Conservative: I think racial preferences violate the Constitution as well as the civil rights laws.
Liberal: You are a racist.
They have no interest in debating on the merits; so they smear you by calling you a name. By doing so, they turn the tables by making your character the issue, as opposed to the topic at hand.
And they use it because it works. They know the media will poison the well. They know most people hate to be called a racist, homophobe, etc, so they will shy away from engaging liberals on issues.
And that is why the Tea Party Movement is so refreshing. These Americans have said we know the left, including the President, will vilify us, stereotype us and try to dismiss us. But this is too important to let them win. Not now. Not in America.
They have my admiration.
Question: What or where is the safest place on Earth?
Answer: Wherever there is a Tea Party Rally.
Liberals have a funny trait: they create shit that is not there and ignore shit right in front of their face.
As we all know, there has not been ANY VIOLENCE at ANY TEA Party rally. Zero. It's so peaceful, its like being in Amish country-minus the carpentry.
And it drives the libs crazy.
So they talk about impending violence. Please. This is an old and tired tactic; they run this play more often than Phil Jackson tells the Lakers "get the ball to Kobe".
It's called the Dehumanization of Dissent.
Here's how the game is played:
Conservative: I think racial preferences violate the Constitution as well as the civil rights laws.
Liberal: You are a racist.
They have no interest in debating on the merits; so they smear you by calling you a name. By doing so, they turn the tables by making your character the issue, as opposed to the topic at hand.
And they use it because it works. They know the media will poison the well. They know most people hate to be called a racist, homophobe, etc, so they will shy away from engaging liberals on issues.
And that is why the Tea Party Movement is so refreshing. These Americans have said we know the left, including the President, will vilify us, stereotype us and try to dismiss us. But this is too important to let them win. Not now. Not in America.
They have my admiration.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Bloom Time Brooklyn
What a difference two weeks makes. I went for a walk in my beloved Prospect Park and everything seems to be blooming. The colors I saw, I can't even describe. The crayola people haven't even invented crayons with these colors yet. Walking in the park two weeks ago was like watching an old black & white TV with the rabbit ears. Today, the 565 acres seemed like high definition television, the one with the newest technology that Mr. Sulu has been peddling.
Spring time in Brooklyn, USA.
Spring time in Brooklyn, USA.
He Stands Out Already
The Mets have called up the much-admired rookie first baseman Ike Davis from the minors. He even got 2 hits and and RBI in his major league debut tonight. While all Met fans hope his future is bright, there is one thing we can say for certain about Ike Davis: He is a Reggie Cleveland All-Star. What is a Reggie Cleveland All-Star? It's a term invented by the great Bill Simmons which lists professional athletes whose names would seem to indicate that they are a different race or ethnicity than they actually are. Ike Davis joins a list that includes the following:
Marcus Giles
Rulon Jones
Khalil Greene
Reggie Willits
Jared Washburn
Darius Songalia
Sidney Ponson
Grady Sizemore
Lets go Mets.
Marcus Giles
Rulon Jones
Khalil Greene
Reggie Willits
Jared Washburn
Darius Songalia
Sidney Ponson
Grady Sizemore
Lets go Mets.
Money For Nothing
As we wrote last week, with the closing of the rubber rooms, the city is sending a lot of these "teachers" back into the schools to do administrative work while their cases are pending. But I had a question regarding what are they doing with the teachers that are accused of sexual or violent misconduct. What's the plan for them? I found out my answer. Under the agreement between the city and the Teacher's Union, they get to go home. And collect their checks. For years and years, while their cases wind there way through the system, they will do nothing. And get paid for it. All on the taxpayers tit. As for the ones that win their cases, but the city feels they are too dangerous to be with school children-they get to go home and collect their checks indefinitely.
Can you imagine what it must have been like in the rubber room when their union delegate came in and announced they don't have to report there anymore- they can just stay home and collect their salaries? Happy days were here again for the incompetent and/or dangerous teachers who have no business being anywhere near a classroom.
But its a good thing that the rubber rooms are closing down, right?
Can you imagine what it must have been like in the rubber room when their union delegate came in and announced they don't have to report there anymore- they can just stay home and collect their salaries? Happy days were here again for the incompetent and/or dangerous teachers who have no business being anywhere near a classroom.
But its a good thing that the rubber rooms are closing down, right?
Monday, April 19, 2010
My Brother American
From the Wall Street Journal:
NBC reporter Kelly O'Donnell and tea-party activist Darryl Postell. O'Donnell approached Postell at a Washington rally, :
O'Donnell: There aren't a lot of African-American men at these events.
Postell: [laughs] Right.
O'Donnell: Have you ever felt uncomfortable?
Postell: No, no, these are my people, Americans
What a perfect response by Darryl Postell.
To liberals like Kelly O'Donnell, its unfathomable that a black American would dare stray to far from the Democratic party. When it comes to blacks who are not lockstep with affirmative action, abortion, homosexual marriage, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, massive deficit spending, socialized medicine, government takeover of banks & car companies, salary caps, carbon footprints, & nuclear disarmament, the liberal response is DON'T YOU KNOW YOUR PLACE?
When you see liberals in the media ask questions like that, it just confirms what we all know to be true: Liberals are the real racial profilers in this country. They assume all black Americans think alike.
Think of how closed minded you must be when you assume someone must think a certain way just because of the color of their skin?
NBC reporter Kelly O'Donnell and tea-party activist Darryl Postell. O'Donnell approached Postell at a Washington rally, :
O'Donnell: There aren't a lot of African-American men at these events.
Postell: [laughs] Right.
O'Donnell: Have you ever felt uncomfortable?
Postell: No, no, these are my people, Americans
What a perfect response by Darryl Postell.
To liberals like Kelly O'Donnell, its unfathomable that a black American would dare stray to far from the Democratic party. When it comes to blacks who are not lockstep with affirmative action, abortion, homosexual marriage, higher taxes, amnesty for illegals, massive deficit spending, socialized medicine, government takeover of banks & car companies, salary caps, carbon footprints, & nuclear disarmament, the liberal response is DON'T YOU KNOW YOUR PLACE?
When you see liberals in the media ask questions like that, it just confirms what we all know to be true: Liberals are the real racial profilers in this country. They assume all black Americans think alike.
Think of how closed minded you must be when you assume someone must think a certain way just because of the color of their skin?
Stevens: A Radical
From National Review Online:
This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—April 18 [Ed Whelan]
1990—Dissenting in Osborne v. Ohio, Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens opine that possession of child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Though unmoored from any plausible meaning of the First Amendment, their position is a logical extension of Justice Marshall’s activist ruling in Stanley v. Georgia (see This Day for April 7, 1969). And faithless as they are to the actual Constitution and to precedents with which they disagree, liberal judicial activists vigorously apply activist precedents.
NAMBLA is losing a good friend on the Supreme Court with Justice Stevens' pending retirement. But somehow I think that Obama will replace him with somebody they approve of.
This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—April 18 [Ed Whelan]
1990—Dissenting in Osborne v. Ohio, Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens opine that possession of child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Though unmoored from any plausible meaning of the First Amendment, their position is a logical extension of Justice Marshall’s activist ruling in Stanley v. Georgia (see This Day for April 7, 1969). And faithless as they are to the actual Constitution and to precedents with which they disagree, liberal judicial activists vigorously apply activist precedents.
NAMBLA is losing a good friend on the Supreme Court with Justice Stevens' pending retirement. But somehow I think that Obama will replace him with somebody they approve of.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
They Can't Get Together
Here's the NYT's on Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
The New York Times reported in its Sunday editions that Mr. Gates had warned in a secret three-page memo that the United States did not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.
Think about that: The Secretary of Defense is saying that we have nothing in place to stop an out of control Islamic regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. The mere fact that he had to write this memo as a way to get the White House to focus on this says everything you need to know about how our security is compromised by Obama.
You know how a child acts out sometimes to get a parent's attention? Gates is no child, but this memo is his way of getting Obama's attention and telling him: "Deal With This Threat."
Lets see if I got this straight: the people who run Iran are crazy, and nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons man has ever created. And we have nothing in place to stop this get together? Iran and nuclear weapons are like Whitney Houston & Bobby Brown: they do enough harm separately, therefore there is no reason they should ever get together. We shouldn't even let them acquire steak knives, never mind nuclear weapons.
But if the Administration is looking for a plan, Baldman has one for them.
When the Gulf War was imminent, Secretary of State James Baker took an Iraqi diplomat aside and told him in no uncertain terms: "Listen fuckhead, take this message back to Saddam: if you use chemical weapons, we will nuke you. You think I am fucking with you? I am not fucking with you."
Bottom line: they knew Baker was serious, so they never used chemical or biological weapons.
Regarding Iran, their crazy leader, the guy with the Members Only jacket has to hear a similar message. He has to be told that our nuclear weapons are not like fine China & Silverware. They are not just for show. That we like to take them out for a test drive every so often. And we will drop them on his head if Iran takes ANY STEPS towards building nuclear weapons.
Obama needs to stop talking about public options and start talking about nuclear options.
And mean it.
The New York Times reported in its Sunday editions that Mr. Gates had warned in a secret three-page memo that the United States did not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.
Think about that: The Secretary of Defense is saying that we have nothing in place to stop an out of control Islamic regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. The mere fact that he had to write this memo as a way to get the White House to focus on this says everything you need to know about how our security is compromised by Obama.
You know how a child acts out sometimes to get a parent's attention? Gates is no child, but this memo is his way of getting Obama's attention and telling him: "Deal With This Threat."
Lets see if I got this straight: the people who run Iran are crazy, and nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons man has ever created. And we have nothing in place to stop this get together? Iran and nuclear weapons are like Whitney Houston & Bobby Brown: they do enough harm separately, therefore there is no reason they should ever get together. We shouldn't even let them acquire steak knives, never mind nuclear weapons.
But if the Administration is looking for a plan, Baldman has one for them.
When the Gulf War was imminent, Secretary of State James Baker took an Iraqi diplomat aside and told him in no uncertain terms: "Listen fuckhead, take this message back to Saddam: if you use chemical weapons, we will nuke you. You think I am fucking with you? I am not fucking with you."
Bottom line: they knew Baker was serious, so they never used chemical or biological weapons.
Regarding Iran, their crazy leader, the guy with the Members Only jacket has to hear a similar message. He has to be told that our nuclear weapons are not like fine China & Silverware. They are not just for show. That we like to take them out for a test drive every so often. And we will drop them on his head if Iran takes ANY STEPS towards building nuclear weapons.
Obama needs to stop talking about public options and start talking about nuclear options.
And mean it.
Obama: It Sucks Being A Superpower
Did you see the President say this at the end of his nuclear summit:
Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower....
Whether we like it or not? Are you shitting me? Did you ever think you would live to see the day where an American President regrets the fact that we have a tremendous military advantage over the rest of the world? What a drag it is, to be able to defend yourself. How unfair it all is.
I for one, LOVE that we are a superpower. I thank God that I live in a country that does not have to rely on another country to provide its national defense. Nothing is better than that. It's the number one perk we have as Americans. And this President sees it as a burden?
Wake me up on the Stoop from this nightmare....
Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower....
Whether we like it or not? Are you shitting me? Did you ever think you would live to see the day where an American President regrets the fact that we have a tremendous military advantage over the rest of the world? What a drag it is, to be able to defend yourself. How unfair it all is.
I for one, LOVE that we are a superpower. I thank God that I live in a country that does not have to rely on another country to provide its national defense. Nothing is better than that. It's the number one perk we have as Americans. And this President sees it as a burden?
Wake me up on the Stoop from this nightmare....
Friday, April 16, 2010
It Changes Nothing
The City of New York & the Teachers Union have reached an agreement regarding the elimination of "rubber rooms". From the NYT:
Under the agreement, teachers the city is trying to fire will no longer be sent to the rubber rooms, known as reassignment centers, where the teachers show up every school day, sometimes for years, doing no work and drawing full salaries. Instead, these teachers will be assigned to administrative work or duties outside classrooms in their schools while their cases are pending.
Some points:
1) The parties came together and reached this agreement because they were both severely embarrassed by the recent media coverage of the rubber rooms. Steven Brill's piece in the New Yorker led the way in putting a spotlight on this shameful & wasteful practice.
2) Reassigning these incompetent teachers to perform clerical duties in schools instead of reporting to the rubber rooms does nothing to solve the core issue here. While their cases chug along through the arbitration process, these teachers still will be getting a paycheck to do essentially nothing. Therefore, while the actual rubber rooms will be eliminated, they will live on in spirit as its members will be spread throughout the system.
3) A lot of these teachers that currently report to the rubber rooms have sexual misconduct allegations against them. Is the city going to let these people around school children?
4) Some of the rubber room teachers have drug and or alcohol abuse cases pending. Again, where is the city going to put them?
5) Please give the parents vouchers so that they don't have to be caught between the city and a labor union.
Under the agreement, teachers the city is trying to fire will no longer be sent to the rubber rooms, known as reassignment centers, where the teachers show up every school day, sometimes for years, doing no work and drawing full salaries. Instead, these teachers will be assigned to administrative work or duties outside classrooms in their schools while their cases are pending.
Some points:
1) The parties came together and reached this agreement because they were both severely embarrassed by the recent media coverage of the rubber rooms. Steven Brill's piece in the New Yorker led the way in putting a spotlight on this shameful & wasteful practice.
2) Reassigning these incompetent teachers to perform clerical duties in schools instead of reporting to the rubber rooms does nothing to solve the core issue here. While their cases chug along through the arbitration process, these teachers still will be getting a paycheck to do essentially nothing. Therefore, while the actual rubber rooms will be eliminated, they will live on in spirit as its members will be spread throughout the system.
3) A lot of these teachers that currently report to the rubber rooms have sexual misconduct allegations against them. Is the city going to let these people around school children?
4) Some of the rubber room teachers have drug and or alcohol abuse cases pending. Again, where is the city going to put them?
5) Please give the parents vouchers so that they don't have to be caught between the city and a labor union.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Always Remember
President Lincoln died 145 years ago today. It was 5 days after the end of the Civil War. Here is the famous poem Walt Whitman wrote about Lincoln's death:
O Captain My Captain
O Captain my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weathered every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up--for you the flag is flung for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You've fallen cold and dead.
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchored safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain My Captain
O Captain my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weathered every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up--for you the flag is flung for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You've fallen cold and dead.
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchored safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
It's Disrespectful
When we think of April 15, we all know what comes to mind: tax day. This is the day we have to settle up with the government. Even the 47% of you that don't pay a dime in federal income taxes know April 15.
But April 15 is should be very important to Americans for another reason. Abraham Lincoln died on this day. It was 145 years ago today that the greatest American of them all passed from this earth.
We are a nation suffering from historical Alzheimer's. We don't know our own history; but we know Lady Gaga.
It's disrespectful to Lincoln's memory to have the day we have to file our tax returns overshadow the day that he died.
Move it to another day.
But April 15 is should be very important to Americans for another reason. Abraham Lincoln died on this day. It was 145 years ago today that the greatest American of them all passed from this earth.
We are a nation suffering from historical Alzheimer's. We don't know our own history; but we know Lady Gaga.
It's disrespectful to Lincoln's memory to have the day we have to file our tax returns overshadow the day that he died.
Move it to another day.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Patterson Is Kicked Off The Stoop
The Stoop has stuck by the much maligned Governor Patterson through all his tough times. But today he proposed something that Baldman cannot turn a blind eye to.
Patterson wants to greatly expand the unconstitutional practice of granting racial, ethnic and gender preferences to companies that provide goods & services to NY state government.
Patterson should be condemned for proposing this. The racial or ethnic background of a business owner has nothing to do with whether that business is competently run and can provide services to the state in a cost effective manner.
We all know that there is no legitimate state interest that would compel New York to ask businesses that want to bid on state contracts to reveal the racial background of the business owner.
None.
But liberals wouldn't be liberals if they could not discriminate on the basis of race.
Always remember that when a liberal solemnly tells you he supports civil rights.
Gov. Paterson Proposes Expansion of Procurement Preferences — By ...
Patterson wants to greatly expand the unconstitutional practice of granting racial, ethnic and gender preferences to companies that provide goods & services to NY state government.
Patterson should be condemned for proposing this. The racial or ethnic background of a business owner has nothing to do with whether that business is competently run and can provide services to the state in a cost effective manner.
We all know that there is no legitimate state interest that would compel New York to ask businesses that want to bid on state contracts to reveal the racial background of the business owner.
None.
But liberals wouldn't be liberals if they could not discriminate on the basis of race.
Always remember that when a liberal solemnly tells you he supports civil rights.
Gov. Paterson Proposes Expansion of Procurement Preferences — By ...
No Cure All
When I was a kid, I had to be near-death to see a doctor, so my daddy got into the habit of putting Robitussin on everything, and I mean EVERYTHING! [Impersonating his father and himself] Daddy, I got asthama! "Well here, take some Robitussin!" Daddy, I got cancer! "Here, take some Robitussin!" Daddy, I broke my leg! "Here, put some Robitussin on it... that's right, let the Robitesum sink in there."- Chris Rock
Liberals have their own version of Robitussin. They call it regulation. They always think that regulation--and more of it-- is the answer. If I had a nickel every time I heard a liberal say "We need regulatory reform", I would have a lot of nickels before the feds took their 35% of the action.
But regulation is like fire: it could be useful, like in cooking or providing heat, or it can be harmful, as when it burns down your house.
The Wall Street Journal Article below is an excellent example of how regulation has hurt those it professes to help.
Gout Drug's Price Soars as Result of FDA Safety Initiative - WSJ.com
Liberals have their own version of Robitussin. They call it regulation. They always think that regulation--and more of it-- is the answer. If I had a nickel every time I heard a liberal say "We need regulatory reform", I would have a lot of nickels before the feds took their 35% of the action.
But regulation is like fire: it could be useful, like in cooking or providing heat, or it can be harmful, as when it burns down your house.
The Wall Street Journal Article below is an excellent example of how regulation has hurt those it professes to help.
Gout Drug's Price Soars as Result of FDA Safety Initiative - WSJ.com
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Quote of the Day
He's Like A Fourth Outfielder
So the soon- to- be- retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is being praised by the media. They love him. They tell us how great he has been on the Court.
What did I miss?
Here's the deal: The Supreme Court is unique in our system of government. It's unique because it speaks through its written opinions. And those opinions are authored by the individual Justices on the Court. Its not like Congress, where 500 members can hide behind an up & down vote.
So Stevens' record is out there. It's all in his opinions-35 years worth.
Now whether you are liberal, conservative or somewhere in the middle, the truth is that Stevens' opinions on the court are not that memorable. He was not a great writer. His judicial philosophy was not greatly admired, or widely emulated. You never came away from reading a Stevens opinion thinking that you learned something, or that he articulated his position-- whether you agreed with it or not-- very well.
He was a mediocre Supreme Court Justice. Who is known for longevity more than anything else.
And it's not just me saying that. I reached out to several people that read a lot of Supreme Court opinions. They all felt the same way.
If he were a baseball player, he would be a lifetime .260 hitter. With very little power & average speed. Who played in the majors a long time. And when that major leaguer retired, the first thing a fan would think of is not a home run he hit, or a base that he stole, or a defensive gem he made in the field. The first thing they would say is: "he played in the majors a long time."
And that sums up Justice Stevens' career.
What did I miss?
Here's the deal: The Supreme Court is unique in our system of government. It's unique because it speaks through its written opinions. And those opinions are authored by the individual Justices on the Court. Its not like Congress, where 500 members can hide behind an up & down vote.
So Stevens' record is out there. It's all in his opinions-35 years worth.
Now whether you are liberal, conservative or somewhere in the middle, the truth is that Stevens' opinions on the court are not that memorable. He was not a great writer. His judicial philosophy was not greatly admired, or widely emulated. You never came away from reading a Stevens opinion thinking that you learned something, or that he articulated his position-- whether you agreed with it or not-- very well.
He was a mediocre Supreme Court Justice. Who is known for longevity more than anything else.
And it's not just me saying that. I reached out to several people that read a lot of Supreme Court opinions. They all felt the same way.
If he were a baseball player, he would be a lifetime .260 hitter. With very little power & average speed. Who played in the majors a long time. And when that major leaguer retired, the first thing a fan would think of is not a home run he hit, or a base that he stole, or a defensive gem he made in the field. The first thing they would say is: "he played in the majors a long time."
And that sums up Justice Stevens' career.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Clinton Fu*ked An Intern; Obama Fu*ks Companies That Use Interns
Remember how Clinton had the problem with the intern? Well Obama has a problem with companies that use interns. Specifically, it's the for- profit companies that Obama has a beef with. (Something about people making a profit drives this man nuts.) Obama has sent his legal henchmen (and women & anything else I left out) from the Department of Labor to crack the whip-because all of a sudden, in Obama's America, the use of interns violates the minimum wage laws. Never mind the valuable experience and contacts that young people gain by becoming interns. In Obama world, it's exploitation of the masses, simple & plain.
But it's only exploitation if a for-profit company does it, you see. Non-profits are exempt. Never mind that interns get paid the same whether the company is a for-profit or non-profit: zero.
And guess who has hired thousands upon thousands of interns? Obama. He used interns for his 2008 campaign. He uses them now. He pays them nothing. He gives them no travel expenses. He does not provide them lunch.
But the Labor department crackdown does not apply to Obama's interns. They work for a non-profit.
And working for free to extend the socialist agenda is a very rewarding experience in Obama's America.
The Unpaid Intern, Legal or Not - NYTimes.com
But it's only exploitation if a for-profit company does it, you see. Non-profits are exempt. Never mind that interns get paid the same whether the company is a for-profit or non-profit: zero.
And guess who has hired thousands upon thousands of interns? Obama. He used interns for his 2008 campaign. He uses them now. He pays them nothing. He gives them no travel expenses. He does not provide them lunch.
But the Labor department crackdown does not apply to Obama's interns. They work for a non-profit.
And working for free to extend the socialist agenda is a very rewarding experience in Obama's America.
The Unpaid Intern, Legal or Not - NYTimes.com
Baldman Has A Lot of Learning To Do
Linda Greenhouse:
Justice Stevens was willing to learn on the job.
What is written above is the NYT headline of Greenhouse's column on John Paul Stevens. And what does the NYT's mean when it says Stevens was willing to "learn on the job"?
That's easy.
At one time, Stevens had the opinion that racial preferences violated the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment. Later on, Stevens changed his mind and decided that the government could discriminate by granting preferences, set asides & quotas based on race and/or ethnicity.
And when you do that, the NYT's calls it "learning".
Justice Stevens was willing to learn on the job.
What is written above is the NYT headline of Greenhouse's column on John Paul Stevens. And what does the NYT's mean when it says Stevens was willing to "learn on the job"?
That's easy.
At one time, Stevens had the opinion that racial preferences violated the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment. Later on, Stevens changed his mind and decided that the government could discriminate by granting preferences, set asides & quotas based on race and/or ethnicity.
And when you do that, the NYT's calls it "learning".
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Reduction Means Addition
The art of liberal problem solving:
When in doubt, appoint a committee. Have the committee study an issue. Have the committee appoint a subcommittee. Kick the can down the road. Or why put off until tomorrow something I can do the day after tomorrow?
So how does Obama want to address our huge deficit? By appointing a deficit-reduction commission. Can you imagine how 50 years from now the last 2 months will look like to historians? The American history pages will read like this: " In February 2010, in order to address the unparalleled deficit facing America, President Obama appointed a deficit- reduction commission. One month later, he signed into law health care for the middle class- the biggest entitlement program since FDR's New Deal."
Talk about a disconnect.
To show how serious he is about deficit reduction, Obama has appointed Andy Stern to the commission. Stern is the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Think about that appointment. A union president on a deficit- reduction commission? Have you ever in your life heard any union member or leader advocate for less government spending?
What expertise does Stern bring to the commission? What a joke. It would be like Nevada appointing Pete Rose to the Nevada Gaming Commission.
I'm willing to bet that every time Stern has received a contract proposal from the federal, state or local governments, his reaction has ALWAYS been "You need to increase that proposal."
But this is the guy who will help America get her fiscal house in order.
Truth be known, we already have a deficit -reduction commission. Its called the President & the Congress. All they have to do is pass a bill that spends less money.
But instead, they appoint a commission tell them what to do-which will be exactly what Obama wants to do anyway: INCREASE TAXES.
What's the use of being a Socialist -in-Chief if you can't tax the shit out of people?
When in doubt, appoint a committee. Have the committee study an issue. Have the committee appoint a subcommittee. Kick the can down the road. Or why put off until tomorrow something I can do the day after tomorrow?
So how does Obama want to address our huge deficit? By appointing a deficit-reduction commission. Can you imagine how 50 years from now the last 2 months will look like to historians? The American history pages will read like this: " In February 2010, in order to address the unparalleled deficit facing America, President Obama appointed a deficit- reduction commission. One month later, he signed into law health care for the middle class- the biggest entitlement program since FDR's New Deal."
Talk about a disconnect.
To show how serious he is about deficit reduction, Obama has appointed Andy Stern to the commission. Stern is the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Think about that appointment. A union president on a deficit- reduction commission? Have you ever in your life heard any union member or leader advocate for less government spending?
What expertise does Stern bring to the commission? What a joke. It would be like Nevada appointing Pete Rose to the Nevada Gaming Commission.
I'm willing to bet that every time Stern has received a contract proposal from the federal, state or local governments, his reaction has ALWAYS been "You need to increase that proposal."
But this is the guy who will help America get her fiscal house in order.
Truth be known, we already have a deficit -reduction commission. Its called the President & the Congress. All they have to do is pass a bill that spends less money.
But instead, they appoint a commission tell them what to do-which will be exactly what Obama wants to do anyway: INCREASE TAXES.
What's the use of being a Socialist -in-Chief if you can't tax the shit out of people?
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Maybe They Should Have Asked Him His Favorite Cricket Player in Indonesia
Some more quick hits on the Prez throwing out the first ball and his fraudulent attempt in claiming he is a baseball fan:
1) How appropriate is it that he threw out the first ball at a Washington Nationals game? I mean, the guy has nationalized banks, auto companies, student loans & health care. It was a perfect jersey for him to wear.
2) When he got to the mound, he whipped out a White Sox hat, and then went into the broadcast booth to proclaim his allegiance to the White Sox. This is where it gets funny. When he's asked who his favorite White Sox player is, he can't come up with one name. It was like watching that Honeymooners episode where Ralph is on the $99,000 Question Quiz Show and he can't name the composer of Swanee River http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH1vpCtXVTU. Then he made it even funnier by mispronouncing the name of the Stadium where the White Sox used to play. The name is "Comisky Park". He called in "Cominsky". In the past, on Bob Costas, he called it "Cominskey Field." Let me tell you something: if I claimed to be a big Met fan, and you asked me who my favorite Met was, and I could not name one guy who played for the team-would you think I was a fan? And if I went further and told you I used to love going to "Shee Park" to see the Mets play, as opposed to "Shea Stadium"--where they actually played-- wouldn't I have revealed myself as someone trying to pretend I was a fan? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with not liking baseball. But trying to pass yourself off as a fan when you clearly know nothing about the game just feels slimy.
3) Maybe if he knew Castro was a big baseball fan, it might spark an interest.
1) How appropriate is it that he threw out the first ball at a Washington Nationals game? I mean, the guy has nationalized banks, auto companies, student loans & health care. It was a perfect jersey for him to wear.
2) When he got to the mound, he whipped out a White Sox hat, and then went into the broadcast booth to proclaim his allegiance to the White Sox. This is where it gets funny. When he's asked who his favorite White Sox player is, he can't come up with one name. It was like watching that Honeymooners episode where Ralph is on the $99,000 Question Quiz Show and he can't name the composer of Swanee River http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH1vpCtXVTU. Then he made it even funnier by mispronouncing the name of the Stadium where the White Sox used to play. The name is "Comisky Park". He called in "Cominsky". In the past, on Bob Costas, he called it "Cominskey Field." Let me tell you something: if I claimed to be a big Met fan, and you asked me who my favorite Met was, and I could not name one guy who played for the team-would you think I was a fan? And if I went further and told you I used to love going to "Shee Park" to see the Mets play, as opposed to "Shea Stadium"--where they actually played-- wouldn't I have revealed myself as someone trying to pretend I was a fan? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with not liking baseball. But trying to pass yourself off as a fan when you clearly know nothing about the game just feels slimy.
3) Maybe if he knew Castro was a big baseball fan, it might spark an interest.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
An Interesting Theory
My brother in solidarity, Jersey Drew, has an interesting theory on my Prospect Park water fountain:
"The water fountain likely doesn't work anymore because the government, who is probably monitoring you, probably read your post, conducted surveillance of you in the park, and replaced the water with spring water from France."
"The water fountain likely doesn't work anymore because the government, who is probably monitoring you, probably read your post, conducted surveillance of you in the park, and replaced the water with spring water from France."
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Why They Do It
Pat Buchanan tells us what is the motivating force behind the NYT's attack on the pope: anti-Catholic bias
The American Conservative » Anti-Catholicism and the Times
The American Conservative » Anti-Catholicism and the Times
Rambling Man: A Hole in His Thinking
Obama was asked at a Town Hall-style meeting the other day a simple question: "Are Americans overtaxed?" He responded with a 17 minute rambling defense of socialized medicine. He never got around to answering the question. For a man who has no use for the filibuster, he sure knows how to use it. At one point, he used an analogy about a hole in a roof as a way to teach the huddled masses why socialized medicine is good for America.
Here's Obama's analogy:
you’ve got a house and you’ve got a big hole in your roof, and it’s raining and snowing through that roof, and there’s some people who are inside the rooms where the roof’s OK and they’re nice and warm, and then you’ve got a few — you know, your family members in that room where there’s a big hole in the roof and they’re shivering and they’re cold, if you repair the roof, that’s going to cost some money
Baldman has a more accurate "hole in the roof" analogy to describe socialized medicine. It works like this: You wake up one day and you have a hole in your roof. You are cold. You are freezing. But you are so conditioned to having the government address your every need, it never occurs to you to fix the hole yourself, or hire someone to fix the hole. So you wait for the government to get around to fixing the hole. Finally after waiting forever in a house with a hole in the roof, the government comes along to address the situation. They see the hole and note the unfairness of it all. And the government solves the problem by putting a hole in every roof on every house on your block.
Here's Obama's analogy:
you’ve got a house and you’ve got a big hole in your roof, and it’s raining and snowing through that roof, and there’s some people who are inside the rooms where the roof’s OK and they’re nice and warm, and then you’ve got a few — you know, your family members in that room where there’s a big hole in the roof and they’re shivering and they’re cold, if you repair the roof, that’s going to cost some money
Baldman has a more accurate "hole in the roof" analogy to describe socialized medicine. It works like this: You wake up one day and you have a hole in your roof. You are cold. You are freezing. But you are so conditioned to having the government address your every need, it never occurs to you to fix the hole yourself, or hire someone to fix the hole. So you wait for the government to get around to fixing the hole. Finally after waiting forever in a house with a hole in the roof, the government comes along to address the situation. They see the hole and note the unfairness of it all. And the government solves the problem by putting a hole in every roof on every house on your block.
Let Michelle Do It Next Time
| Did you see Obama throw out the first ball at the Washington Nationals game? OMG. Let's hope America's enemies did not see that throw. How wimpy. Maybe global warming caused the ball to loop into the air. Maybe it was all the soft- tossing questions from the American press effected his throwing arm. Speaking of soft tossing, watch the video below and see how Obama can't answer the easiest of questions: Who is your favorite player on your favorite team? | |
Says he was an A's fan growing up, despite label of "White Sox Kid" | |
| © 2010 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 | |
Sunday, April 4, 2010
A Relief
When I read that the brother of Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez was injured in a car accident, like most Met fans, I was relieved to learn that the car did not hit Reyes & Beltran.
K-Rod: Brothers hurt in Venezuelan car accident
K-Rod: Brothers hurt in Venezuelan car accident
Quote of the Day
As I have said over and over and over, the left has one trick that it will use again and again when its back is in the corner: shout ‘racist’ in a crowded country.- Andrew Breitbart
It's a Wild World
During my Prospect Park walk, I ran into a lot of the same "park people" that I have seen for years. One guy is a dead ringer for Cat Stevens. He's a nice fella, and he told me once that he walks 10 times around the park every other day.
When I saw him today, it triggered a theory I had about Cat Stevens, who transformed himself from a peace-loving folk singer to a Muslim fundamentalist who agreed with the fatwa declared against Salman Rushdie.
My theory is that even when he was a hippie folk singer, Stevens was really trying to tell us he was a terrorist supporter in the making. Take a song like "Wild World." When you analyze the lyrics through the post-Islamic embracing Stevens, it comes off as a warning as what was going to happen down the road. It wouldn't even surprise me if the original verse went like this:
If you have to fly, take good care
Remember there's a lot of jihadists out there
When I saw him today, it triggered a theory I had about Cat Stevens, who transformed himself from a peace-loving folk singer to a Muslim fundamentalist who agreed with the fatwa declared against Salman Rushdie.
My theory is that even when he was a hippie folk singer, Stevens was really trying to tell us he was a terrorist supporter in the making. Take a song like "Wild World." When you analyze the lyrics through the post-Islamic embracing Stevens, it comes off as a warning as what was going to happen down the road. It wouldn't even surprise me if the original verse went like this:
If you have to fly, take good care
Remember there's a lot of jihadists out there
I See Said the Blind Man
Sorry about the lack of posts over the last few days. For Baldman, the start of Spring means allergies and as such, I developed an allergic reaction in my left eye. Along with the usual redness and burning, the eye became very sensitive to light and I found it impossible to read and write. Once I was unable to read and write, I expected a basketball scholarship offer from John Calapari, but none arrived. So basically I stayed in very dark rooms with no books, magazines or newspapers to read. I guess you can call it getting in touch with my inner- liberal.
Regarding the eye, I tried a bunch of over the counter eye drops. No good. I took allergy pills. Swing and a miss. I went to the glorious NY Spa Castle in Queens and tried their steam and sauna rooms to alleviate the condition. It did not work. The only thing that has brought any relief was something I stumbled onto today. I put on my Billy Martin in the '70s sunglasses to avoid the stinging sun and walked around Prospect Park. While finishing my lap, I came across a water fountain. Now its way early in the season, so I did not expect the water fountain to work. But low and behold, it did. And I don't know how water fountains work--to me, the whole water delivery system is a miracle-- but perhaps because the pipes were as cold as could be from the winter, this water was the COLDEST & MOST REFRESHING water I ever drank in my life. Take the coldest tap you ever drank at Farrell's and try to imagine something even better, cause this is what I experienced. You know how you do something sometimes without even thinking? That's what happened next. Without even realizing it, I let the water hit my stinging eye. I know water fountains are not the most sanitary places. I also know that some maniac serial killer could have drank from the same fountain just before me. But you know what, as soon as that Prospect Park water splashed into my left eye, I felt more relief than all of the others things I tried combined.
Another reason to love the park.
Regarding the eye, I tried a bunch of over the counter eye drops. No good. I took allergy pills. Swing and a miss. I went to the glorious NY Spa Castle in Queens and tried their steam and sauna rooms to alleviate the condition. It did not work. The only thing that has brought any relief was something I stumbled onto today. I put on my Billy Martin in the '70s sunglasses to avoid the stinging sun and walked around Prospect Park. While finishing my lap, I came across a water fountain. Now its way early in the season, so I did not expect the water fountain to work. But low and behold, it did. And I don't know how water fountains work--to me, the whole water delivery system is a miracle-- but perhaps because the pipes were as cold as could be from the winter, this water was the COLDEST & MOST REFRESHING water I ever drank in my life. Take the coldest tap you ever drank at Farrell's and try to imagine something even better, cause this is what I experienced. You know how you do something sometimes without even thinking? That's what happened next. Without even realizing it, I let the water hit my stinging eye. I know water fountains are not the most sanitary places. I also know that some maniac serial killer could have drank from the same fountain just before me. But you know what, as soon as that Prospect Park water splashed into my left eye, I felt more relief than all of the others things I tried combined.
Another reason to love the park.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
F Them
| There are so many reasons to root against Duke this weekend. This video nails most of them: | |
Peter Rosenberg lets the world know why Duke is and should be so hated--because they're pure evil (a parody of "This is Why I'm Hot" by M.I.M.S.) .... Directed by Michael Wolcott Created by Peter Rosenberg | |
| © 2010 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
