No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Politics – National' Category

September 1, 2007

Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US (part 2)?

by @ 15:58. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

The question is out there again courtesy Allahpundit, so it’s time to bring the old poll back, but with a twist. Since WP-Poll now supports multiple answers, let’s run it again. This time, you get up to 3 options, and if I still haven’t hit your sweet spot, pipe up.

Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US (part 2)?

Up to 3 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • After determining which group it was, send the B-52s in for the nuclear Grand Tour of their bases of operations. (21%, 32 Vote(s))
  • We nuke Islam's "holy" sites, no questions asked. (19%, 30 Vote(s))
  • We nuke the supplier(s) of the nukes. (17%, 27 Vote(s))
  • We nuke Waziristan, or wherever the current home of Al Qaeda is at the time, no questions asked. (17%, 26 Vote(s))
  • After determining which group it was, we send the B-52s on a conventional Grand Tour of their bases of operation. (7%, 11 Vote(s))
  • We lay waste to Islam's "holy" sites with conventional weapons, no questions asked. (6%, 9 Vote(s))
  • We wage conventional war on the supplier(s) of the nukes. (6%, 9 Vote(s))
  • No one because that would be "wrong". (4%, 6 Vote(s))
  • No one because we're waving the French battle flag (aka white flag of unconditional surrender). (3%, 4 Vote(s))
  • Something I missed (please explain in the thread). (1%, 2 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 156

Loading ... Loading ...

If you’re wondering what happened last time, let’s review:

Who should we retaliate against if the Islamokazis nuke the US?

Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • We nuke Islam's "holy" sites, no questions asked. (32%, 7 Vote(s))
  • After determining which group it was, send the B-52s in for the nuclear Grand Tour of their bases of operations. (23%, 5 Vote(s))
  • After determining which group it was, we send the B-52s on a conventional Grand Tour of their bases of operation. (18%, 4 Vote(s))
  • We nuke Waziristan, the current home of Al Qaeda, no questions asked. (14%, 3 Vote(s))
  • We nuke the supplier(s) of the nukes. (5%, 1 Vote(s))
  • We wage conventional war on the supplier(s) of the nukes. (5%, 1 Vote(s))
  • Something I missed (please explain in the thread) (5%, 1 Vote(s))
  • We lay waste to Islam's "holy" sites with conventional weapons, no questions asked. (0%, 0 Vote(s))
  • No one because that would be "wrong". (0%, 0 Vote(s))
  • No one because we're waving the French battle flag (aka white flag of unconditional surrender) (0%, 0 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 22

Loading ... Loading ...

August 30, 2007

Fred’s entry – T-minus 1:58 7 days and counting

by @ 13:32. Filed under Politics - National.

Jeff Emanuel at RedState has the scoop. At 3:30 pm CDT, Fred Thompson will announce he’s entering the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Revisions/extensions (4:21 pm 8/30/2007) – The Fred announcement tour begins on Thursday, September 6, the day he will tell the Federal Election Commission that he is no longer just “testing the waters”.

August 29, 2007

I didn’t know there were farms in Manhattan, NY

by @ 10:10. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Slublog)

NRO’s The Cornerhas a very interesting map of those living in Manhattan, NY that are getting farm subsidies. Do note the 5 large dots; they’re people getting more than $250,000 per year in farm subsidies.

Under the House Dhimm farm bill, they’re likely to continue to receive those grants; those making up to $1,000,000 per year are eligible, with loopholes allowing even more-wealthy “farmers” to get in on the trough.

August 28, 2007

Do you still think The Second Sentence or the DOMA amendment was unnecessary?

(H/T – Dad29)

Just to refresh your memory, here is Section 13 of Article XIII of the Wisconsin constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The California Supreme Court is currently considering a consolidated set of cases where the city of San Francisco and assorted nuts want to force California to recognize gay “marriages”. Before I get to the truly-mind-blowing part of the post, here’s a short history cribbed from VoteYesMarriage.com, an outfit seeking to enshrine marriage into California’s constitution:

– In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which became Family Code section 308.5, which read in entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Do note that, other than a grammatical anomaly and the substitution of “this state” for “California”, that is The First Sentence. Also, do note that the Family Code is part of California’s statutes, not its constitution.

– Between 2003 and 2005, the California Legislature systematically extended every right traditionally reserved for marriage to same-sex couples under the banner “domestic partnerships”, including forcing private entites who either have government contracts or provide insurance to provide full married benefits to same-sex couples.

– In 2004, San Francisco issued same-sex “marriage certificates” in violation of state law. While California’s Supreme Court voided it, it invited a challenge to Family Code 308.5 on “constitutional” grounds, which was promptly issued.

– In 2005, the California courts held those extensions “constitutional” by declaring that Prop 22/Family Code 308.5 only protected the name “marriage” and not any rights associated it, and then extended the force-feeding of same-sex benefits to all entities that provide public accomodations.

– In 2006, an appellate court ruled that Family Code 308.5 did prohibit same-sex “marriage”. That case is part of a consolidated set of marriage cases currently before the California Supreme Court.

Even before we get to the bombshell, we have “(a) legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” created in California. Now, on to the bombshell.

On June 20, the California Supreme Court asked the interested parties in the consolidated marriage cases referenced above to answer four questions:

  1. What differences in legal rights or benefits and legal obligations or duties exist under current California law affecting those couples who are registered domestic partners as compared to those couples who are legally married spouses? Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware.
  2. What, if any, are the minimum, constitutionally-guaranteed substantive attributes or rights that are embodied within the fundamental constitutional “right
    to marry” that is referred to in cases such as Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 713-714? In other words, what set of substantive rights and/or obligations, if any, does a married couple possess that, because of their constitutionally protected status under the state Constitution, may not (in the absence of a compelling interest) be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature, or by the people through the initiative process, without amending the California Constitution?
  3. Do the terms “marriage” or “marry” themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution? Could the Legislature, consistent with the California Constitution, change the name of the legal relationship of “marriage” to some other name, assuming the legislation preserved all of the rights and obligations that are now associated with marriage?
  4. Should Family Code section 308.5 – which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” – be interpreted to prohibit only the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state or country or does the provision also apply to and prohibit same-sex marriages entered into within California? Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, ?? 1, 2, cl.1), could California recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into within California but deny such recognition to same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state? Do these federal constitutional provisions affect how Family Code section 308.5 should be interpreted?

Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (RINO-Hollywood and Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-Moon) filed briefs that answered the first 3 questions essentially identically.

Answer #1 summary (identical in both briefs) – There Are No Differences Between the Legal Rights and Benefits or the Legal Obligations and Duties Provided to Married Couples and Those Provided to Registered Domestic Partners Under California Law. Mostly noted above, though Brown’s brief took the added step of noting that even if “marriage” were granted to same-sex couples, it would not be recognized under federal law or by other states.

To that, I say, “Only until the Ninth Circus gets a hold of it.”

Answer #2 summary (Brown’s brief) – Although a Compelling Justification Would Be Needed Before the State Could Forbid a Man and a Woman from Entering into the Essential Relationship We Know as Marriage, Married Couples Do Not Possess Any Substantive Right Or Obligation Under Californa Law That Could Not Be Eliminated by Legislative Action Supported by a Rational Basis. (Schwarzenegger’s brief summary begins after the comma) Of particular note is the last sentence of both briefs (Brown’s brief quoted; Schwarzenegger’s brief essentially identical) – “But the State submits that, except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual committment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be aborgated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.”

In short, the only guaranteed right of marriage in California is to choose one’s “life partner” (the phrase is used in both briefs). Before I get to the item that makes even this moot in the eyes of the executive branch of California’s government, I will note that Schwarzenegger urges in his answer to the fourth question that Family Code section 308.5 be interpreted to mean that same-sex “marriages” not be recognized regardless of where they were entered into.

Answer #3 summary (identical in both briefs) – No Constitutional Provision Would Prohibit Changing the Name of the Marriage Relationship to Some Other Name. And thus “marriage” and Proposition 22/Family Code section 308.5 die. I will note that Schwarzenegger’s brief notes that the reference to “marriage” in Prop 22 might mean that any change in the name could require a vote of the people.

In short, without The Second Sentence, and without the protection of being part of Wisconsin’s constitution, The First Sentence would have been utterly meaningless, as it would neither have defended the institution of marriage nor the name of marriage itself.

August 20, 2007

SF Chronicle – We’re for Democraticy, not democracy

Thanks to the fine folks at Free Republic, I’ve expanded my search for stupid idiotorials. The San Francisco Chronicle obliged with a missive (mis)titled “In defense of 55 electoral votes”. How is this idiotorial wrong? Let’s count the ways…

AMERICANS DON’T like the Electoral College. It’s unwieldy, it seems anti-democratic and it has given rise to one of the more despicable facts of modern presidential campaigning: rather than addressing the concerns of the entire country, major-party candidates choose to do most of their post-primary campaigning in just a few battleground states – Ohio and Florida happen to be the most popular ones right now. So, in the face of a proposed California ballot measure that means to erode it, allow us to explain why the Electoral College system is worth defending – at least until someone comes up with a nonpartisan, effective means of abolishing it.

It’s meant to be unwieldy. Indeed, it’s meant to preserve, after a fashion, the last bit of rights the states have over the federal government. I’m sure that, especially now, Plastic Pelosi’s hometown paper would love the British system of the party that runs the legislative automatically running the executive. Oh, and if anything, that’s less-democratic (small “d”) than what we have now.

I’ll wait until a bit later to take a whack at their “defense”, but I will note right now that a ballot initiative is of questionable constitutionality. The US Constitution specifically gives the various state legislatures sole determination of how to allocate the electors. It could easily be argued that a change in the allocation via California’s ballot initiative, which does not involve the Legislature at all, would be explicitly unconstitutional.

The ballot measure, known right now only as No. 07-0032, was filed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, managing partner of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk. This is the law firm for the California Republican Party. The measure would do away with the custom of awarding all of California’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Instead, 2 electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner and the rest would be given to whoever won in each of 53 congressional districts. Because 19 of California’s 53 districts are represented by Republicans, and 22 districts voted for President Bush in 2004, this initiative would probably offer around 20 electoral votes to a Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

But, but, but I thought the Chronicle wanted democracy. Two states (Maine and Nebraska) already allocate their electors this way.

“What can be more fair than this?” said Kevin Eckery, spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation, which is the nominal entity sponsoring the initiative. “Everyone’s voice is going to be heard. It could even help third-party candidates, like the Green Party, in a place like San Francisco.”

It definitely would boost turnout in various portions of California. Of course, most of them would be Pubbies that would finally have a reason to vote, and the rest would be the Naderites.

Also, placing a good number of formerly-safe ‘Rat votes into the mix will get the candidates into California. Then again, that’s not the Chronicle’s goal; it is to get DhimmiRATs elected no matter what.

Please. This is nothing but dirty politics. Nor are snatch-and-grab initiatives just like this one the sole province of Republican interests. In 2004, Colorado voters rejected a similar initiative that would’ve benefited the Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Sen. John Kerry. (President Bush beat Kerry 52 to 42 percent, but had the initiative passed, Kerry would’ve gotten 4 electoral votes to Bush’s 5.)…

STOP THE TAPE! Giving 100% of one state’s electoral vote to somebody who garners a plurality is the very definition of dirty politics. As an aside, the emphasis was in the original. Roll tape.

…Colorado voters, who initially supported the measure, realized a couple of things that Californians must come to recognize should No. 07-0032 make it onto our June 3 ballot:

— Splitting the number of electoral votes a candidate can win from any one state is highly unlikely to motivate them to spend more time here,…

STOP THE TAPE!!! When was the last time a Presidential candidate really invested time in California? The ‘Rats currently considers those 55 almost as safe as New York’s, while the wiser Pubbies have completely ignored California since 1988. The only thing that might change that calculus under the current system is if the Pubbie hails from California, and neither half of the ‘Rat ticket is from west of the Rockies. Put at least some of those votes in play, and attention will necessarily follow.

…and

— Measures such as this are useless and, usually, highly partisan, unless the entire country adopts them.

Which explains why Nebraska and Maine do this already </sarcasm>.

That’s why any credible measure to reform the Electoral College – and there have been hundreds of them, nearly all as flawed as the existing system – must be launched on a national level, preferably by a disinterested party.

Acutally, it can’t, at least without Congressional approval. Those schemes would involve either interstate compacts or a Constitutional amendment, and both have to go through Congress.

For instance, the efforts of John Koza – a genetic programming professor at Stanford University – to circumvent the Electoral College in favor of having each state ensure its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote merit attention. This isn’t because his idea is perfect (it’s certainly not). But what’s worth noting are the facts that he spearheaded a national movement (his group, National Popular Vote, has found 364 sponsors for bills in 47 states) and that Koza has fought hard to appeal to both political parties. (He’s been a Democratic elector, but he’s enthusiastically sought out Republican bill sponsors.) Koza understands that democracy can only work if everyone agrees to play by the same rules – and at the same time.

I do believe I whacked this before.

Would that the sponsors of No. 07-0032 felt the same way. To qualify for the June 3 primary ballot – a ballot that is expected to have low turnout, now that the Legislature has moved the presidential primary portion to Feb. 5 – they must collect more than 400,000 valid signatures. (Eckery said that, to be safe, they’ll need to collect a figure in the range of 700,000.) If the California Republican Party jumps in with money and support, California voters must consider who this measure will truly benefit – we promise that it’s not them.

As a change via ballot initiative would inevitably be tied up in the courts and likely struck down, I agree. However, if the California Legislature were to adopt that plan, I would be in favor.

August 17, 2007

Helpful hint to the Dem Presidential candidates

To: Biden, Joseph; Clinton, Hillary; Dodd, Christopher; Edwards, John; Gravel, Mike; Kucinich, Dennis; Obama, Barack; Richardson, Bill
Cc: ABC News; CBS News; NBC News; CNN; New York Times; Washington Post; et al
Re: Your Republican opponent

With the abandonment of Tommy “The Other” Thompson’s long-shot campaign, there are currently no Republican candidates, either announced or likely, with any ties to the Bush Administration. Please make a note of it.

/s/
Emergency Blogging System
(What, you expected Steve to sign this one? He’s too busy laughing at your insistence on riding BDS with a Communistic backup plan to ruin, or that’s just a lack of sleep.)

P.S. With the Republican versions of Zero Personality and Human Gaffe Machine out of the race, you think you could get rid of the Gravel Road and Dennis the Menace?

August 7, 2007

Congrats Sean

by @ 15:49. Filed under Politics - National.

The Cheddar invasion of DC continues with Sean Hackbarth’s acceptance of a job on Team Fred. Outstanding.

Between him and Kevin (formerly of Lakeshore Laments), we’ll clean up DC yet.

August 5, 2007

Pubbie ABC News debate from Iowa – almost live thread

Or at least I had hoped to make it live. WISN is the worst ABC affiliate in the nation, as they’re blathering on local crap for a second hour.

8:17 – Forgot to mention that Free Republic, as always, has a rolling live thread. Meanwhile, Jim of bRight & Early has an equally-sucky affiliate.

9:00 – Missed the current ABC/WaPo poll, but The Other Thompson is a dead duck.

9:01 – We start with the Brownback robo-call pointing out that Romney wasn’t always pro-life. Brownback sticking by it. Romney trying to say it’s untrue, and Steffie trying to draw out what is untrue about it. Romney ducking and shucking.

9:03 – Brownback ain’t afraid of no YouTube. Next hit piece aired; Romney slamming Rudi for being essentially a ‘Rat. Romney soft-pedaling, and Rudi pushes the pro-abort line.

9:06 – Next hit piece – The Other Thompson on Rudi for stating the obvious; a pro-abort candidate will put the Pubbies against the Catholics (specifically). Tommy trying to get this out of the abortion gutter that Steffi drove it into.

9:08 – To McShame from Steffi – Shouldn’t we de-emphasize abortion in favor of national security? No, but the transcendent issue is defeating Islamokazis.

9:10 – YouTuber – “What would be your strategy for ending the war in Iraq?” Paul – “Just march home; this is an illegal, undeclared war” (I guess that authorization of use of force never happened </sarcasm>. Hunter – “I was here when the Rooskies threatened Central Europe, and when the Sandanistas threatened Central America…. The Marines have turned around Al Anbar… and the ‘Rats to a person didn’t pause in their rush to the exits to thank them.”

9:13 – Steffi – Is there a middle ground? Huckabee – Yes. Let’s become energy independent. “If we can feed ourselves, fuel ourselves and manufacture for ourselves, we’ll stay free.” Brownback – The problem is political (say, isn’t Congress taking most of the month off?), and make it 3 states.

9:15 – McCain – “We are winning. We must win. If we lose,… we will be back…. The morale is high.” To Rudi – Is there any difference between you and McCain. Rudi – “I noticed that no ‘Rat has mentioned the words ‘Islamic terrorism.'”

9:18 – To the Romney third of Rudi McRomney – Are you all of the same mind on Iraq? Romney – Yes. On Obama – “He’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.” “It’s time to give the troops a surge of support.”

9:19 – Immediately to the Tanc to find differences – “Can we win? Yes.” Review the rules of engagement and let loose the dogs of war without the muzzle. “Iraq has got to take control of Iraq”

9:21 – To The Other Thompson – I’ve got a plan, and that’s to demand payment from Iraq and state elections.

9:22 – To the Toofer Paul – “I’m in the wrong primary.”

9:24 – To McCain – “The war was mismanaged for 4 years, but now it’s being managed right…. I’m going to be judged by history and not by public polls.”

9:25 – Steffi and company pushing CubaCare for the kids by raising taxes – “Do you side with Grassley or Bush?” Huckabee – “Either give America the same kind of health care Congress has or Congress the same kind of health care America has.” We’re not going to fix it until this country focuses on wellness and prevention. TOT – Neither. Huckabee is right. Don’t raise taxes.

9:28 – To Tanc – “It’s not the responsibilty of government to provide womb-to-tomb health care to America.” Let’s expand HSAs (good), reimport drugs (bad), and boot the illegals.

9:29 – Steffi – “Are you in favor of expanding CubaCare for Kids?” TOT – Not the way they did it. Tanc – No. Romney – We have to make “private” health insurance mandatory. Rudi – Points out that this is a step toward full-blown CubaCare.

9:32 – Hunter – Allow interstate commerce for health insurance.

9:33 – Stupid question of the day – “How do you provide health care without raising taxes?” Brownback whacks it out of the park – “Keep it private.”

9:34 – Barack Strangelove comments up now. Debate between Rudi and Romney on this. Rudi (who would keep the option open) – Obama had diarreah of the mouth. Steffi brings up Rudi’s diarreah, and he backs off somewhat. Romney (who was portrayed as he wouldn’t do it) – Points out the paradox of Obama. Steffi tries to draw out what Romney would do if Pakistan tries to block an extraction of Osama bin Laden. He’ll keep the option on the table.

9:37 – Hunter pointing to what Pakistan has done (er, it isn’t much).

9:38 – Free elections in Iran? That’s funny; the Mad Mullahs banned just about everybody except their boy Ahmaddhimmijob. Brownback Huckabee – We can’t force everybody to accept our way of life (well, we managed in Germany and Japan; of course, we killed just about everybody who waged war on us first). Let’s spread it by example To Toofer – “I’m definitely in the wrong primary.”

9:41 – To Rudi – Democracy also requires the rule of law. Question from Steffi – Did we go to elections too quickly in Gaza? Rudy – Perhaps. First, we have to build respect of rights and security. McCain – Rule of law is starting to happen in Iraq. It’s naiive to say we’re going to attack Pakistan without thinking it through. Brings up that Kennedy said essentially the same thing regarding democracy as Bush.

9:44 – Romney – Reach out with all our capabilities. Steffi tries to draw out a cheap shot at Bush, Romney declines. Hey Toofer, they attacked us on 9/11.

9:46 – Steffi to Tanc – Foggy Bottom called your plan to nuke Mecca/Medina “reckless”. Tanc – That’s why they’re called Foggy Bottom. To TOT – It would unify 1 billion Islamokazis against us (true, but there are already 800 or so million unified against us; what’s another 200 million, give or take whoever’s there during the nuclear Hajj).

9:49 – Brownback – If you push democracy in certain parts of the Islamic world now, you’re going to get more Islamokazi gubmints.

9:50 – YouTuber #2 – “Should we raise taxes for infrastructure?” Huckabee – “No on taxes, but we do need to rebuild.”

9:50 part 2 – “Rudy, how can the Pubbies rebuild without raising taxes?” (me – cut the damn spending on the welfare state) Rudy – You don’t have to increase tax rates to increase revenues. And here’s a special for Breck Girl – the last time we raised the capital gains tax, we reduced revenue.

9:52 – Romney – Economic growth is how you grow revenue. Back in Taxachusetts, I said, “Fix it first.”

9:53 – McCain – Everything in that latest transportation bill has been pork, and nothing for fixing.

9:54 – To commercial.

9:59 – BoobTube part 3 – “Would you restrict the role of the VP and put it in the Constitution?” (I think this left tilt is the reason why the Pubbies aren’t warm to the CNN/YouTube debate) McCain – “There’s only 2 roles…be president of the Senate and check on the health of the President daily.” TOT – “Vice President Cheney’s criticized for a lot of things he doesn’t do.” Rudy – The VP has to be capable to take over the office on a moment’s notice, and then the division is something to discuss. Steffi pushes on whether Rudy would take Cheney. You can’t keep the VP in the dark like Truman was.

10:03 – Romney – “They have kept us safe the last 6 years.” Brownback – I wouldn’t delegate, but I would involve. Bush overrelied on Cheney. Toofer – “I belong in the DhimmiRAT primary.” Hunter – Depends on the credentials of the President. I’m a vet, my son’s a vet, and I wouldn’t share the role of CinC with a VP.

10:05 – “Fair”Tax time (23% sales tax) Huckabee – I like a 23% sales tax because “it ends the underground economy” (no; it moves it to the black market). Romney – It’s not that good. One thing; as it is proposed, it would kill the new home construction industry. Rudy – Kill the death tax. Simplify the tax code, and the flat-“fair” tax is intriguing if we were starting at the beginning. Question from Rudy – who would administer it and those exempt from it (guess the IRS isn’t going away).

10:09 – McCain – Get rid of the AMT. Tanc – I’m a co-sponsor (pushes a Boortz book). The power of taxation is that it manipulates behavior (and a 23% sales tax wouldn’t manipulate behavior into a lack of consumption outside of the black market?) Brownback – Flat tax, not a 23% sales tax.

10:12 – E-mailed Q – “What is the defining mistake of your life and why?” Hunter – “I considered running as a ‘Rat my first time.” Paul – “Not speaking out on the Constitution” (not running as a ‘Rat?). Huckabee – “Not taking better care of myself the first half of my life.” Romney – “Taking a pro-abort position when I first ran.” Rudi – “30 seconds isn’t enough time. I’ll explain it to your pappy priest.” McCain – “Moving off the Forestal after nearly getting blown off. (missed the other one). Brownback – “Not telling my wife and kids I love them often enough. TOT – “Not being supportive enough when my mother-in-law died of breast cancer.” Tanc – “It took me 30 years to accept Christ.”

10:15 – Steffi – “What will you restore to the Oval Office?” Tanc – Hope. TOT – Be bi-partisan and un-PC in the war on jihad. Brownback – Rebuilding the family, and providing Justice #5 to reverse Roe v Wade McCain – Fight Islamokazis and never surrender. Rudy – Hope part deux, oh and the top 3 ‘Rats didn’t run anything. Romney – Strengthen the military, strengthen the economy and strengthen the family. Huckabee – Put a frame that says “Boss” in the Oval Office and put ordinary Americans’ mugs in it like I did in Arkansas. Toofer – Openness. Tell Congress everything (which would tell everyone everything including our enemies). Hunter – Economic patriotism.

10:22 – And we’re out of here.

10:38 – I see that Matt Lewis also has a sucky ABC affiliate. He’s declared Rudi the winner almost by default. I’ll decide later.

August 2, 2007

Hiliary flip-flops on Pakistan

by @ 10:48. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

(H/T – Mary Katharine Ham)

Jim Geraghty at NRO discovers a Hiliarious flip-flop on Pakistan:
Flip

July 27 : US Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton has rejected suggestions of a unilateral US strike in Pakistan’s tribal region, American troops should accompany Pakistan troops.

Addressing a fund-raising dinner organised by the National Association of Pakistani-Americans, Hillary said a unilateral US strike would not produce the desired results, but would create fresh problems.

Only a combined effort could destroy militant hideouts in the area, she added.

Flop (yesterday) –

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

“If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,” she said.


Nice example, Hiliary. That empty-tent strike wasn’t even successful in its primary mission, much less the secondary mission of doing anything to Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.

I know she doesn’t have the balls to do the job right, especially if it can’t be done quickly.

July 30, 2007

Sen. Ted Stevens’ house raided – where’s Reid?

by @ 19:13. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Bryan I really need to remember to check the author; sorry about that)

Fox News is reporting that the FBI and the IRS searched the Alaska home of Sen. Ted Stevens (“R”-AK), presumably as part of an investigation for exchanging federal contracts for bribes from VECO Corp, Alaska’s largest oil-field engineering firm. They also note that the remainder of Alaska’s Congressional delegation, Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Don Young (also “Pubbies”), are entangled in this mess.

Given that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert decided that congeniality was the better part of either the law or partisanship and condemned the investigation into corruption on the part of William “The Freezer” Jefferson (D-LA), I expect nothing less from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. </sarcasm> Of course; he won’t do it, but not because of a sense of respect for the law; he’ll see it as a way to get another seat or two for his party. Neither would current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should Young get further emeshed in this, and for the same reason.

Great fucking job, RINOs, from Stevens to Hastert. </sarcasm_dripping>

He’ll always be “Breck Girl”

by @ 7:03. Filed under Politics - National.

I just can’t keep up with Zombie Reagan/see-dubya. First, he mandates that we retire Silky Pony as John Edwards’ nickname, then retire Pink Sapphire. Now, after Sweaty Pretzel disappeared without any fanfare, Zombie Reagan has issued another retire Pink Sapphire memo, this time to be replaced with Chamois Butt’r. Seeing that despite biking about a dozen miles with a brain bucket, he didn’t have helmet hair, I’m sticking with Breck Girl.

However, we’ve got a new name for the rest of his team – Team Trousermouse.

July 23, 2007

Should the DailyKos be Subject to the Federal Election Commission?

by @ 22:23. Filed under Politics - National.

That is the question posed by one John Bambenek, who filed a complaint with the FEC asking them to regulate the Daily Kos as a political committee. I cannot answer it better than Jim Robinson, the founder of Free Republic, did in the Free Republic thread on it:

Not only no, but hell no! The first amendment protects our God-given unalienable rights to free speech, free press, freedom to dissent and freedom of association. All of the campaign laws enacted by congress in violation of the first amendment should be repealed as unconstitutional and the FEC disbanded.

Unleash the Photoshoppers on the enemies of John Doe

Head on down to Michelle’s blog and take in the brilliance that is the army of Photoshoppers as we take on the DhimmiRATs’ elimination of protections for John Doe. Since this will in all likelyhood trigger a pingback, I don’t want to be empty-handed, and created a rotating sign.

report-sign.gif

July 20, 2007

Can we sue the lawyers, CAIR and the DhimmiRATs when the next successful terrorist attack takes place?

Revisions/extensions (10:55 am 7/20/2007) – It was (as likely as I can determine) Justin Higgins at Right on the Right that created the graphic. Sorry about not passing along proper credit earlier.

(H/T – Michelle)

The Dhimms, including Wisconsin’s twin embarrassments, Russ el-Slimeroad (Moonbat-Al Qaeda) and Nobody’s Senator, Herb Kohl, as well as Dhimm Presidential candidates Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, voted to kill protections for John Does mere hours after the House killed it. The John Doe amendment was intended to protect those that report suspicious behavior from lawsuits such as the one filed by the infamous Flying Imams. In “honor” of this, CDR Salamander has created a new PSA poster

dhimms-v-john-doe.jpg

I have a message for them – I am STILL John Doe, and if your minions decide to pull any shit in my presence, I won’t just be informing on them and waiting for the police to do something.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (11:22 am 7/20/2007) – WisCon, commenting on Michelle’s thread, has el-Slimeroad’s initial statement on his support of the Islamokazis and lawyers:

From Russ Feingold’s office:

"The bill is too ambiguous and too complex blah blah blah."

So that’s why he voted against it, because it’s too complex?

"He is preparing a statement right now and I can send it to you."

I put in a request to WisCon to get a copy if he does.

July 18, 2007

This day in history – the Swimmer edition

by @ 9:18. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T for the memory jog) – Sister Toldjah)

I know that the 38th anniversary of the negligent homicide of Mary Jo Kopechne by Ted Kennedy (or at least that’s what he would have likely been convicted of had he not been a Kennedy) won’t get nearly as much attention as the murders of the Swimmer’s brothers, but I can’t let this day pass without noting the most-infamous trip ever taken in an Oldsmobile.

There’s so much that Mary Jo hasn’t been able to comment on.

Top Iraqi in Al Qaeda captured, Dingy Harry deeply saddened

by @ 8:18. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

(H/T – Allahpundit)

ABC News is reporting the capture of Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani (aka Abu Shahid), the highest-ranking Iraqi in the Al Qaeda in Iraq terror group. What is interesting is what ABC News has put in its story:

(Brigadier General Kevin) Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri.

“In fact, communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani,” Bergner said….

“In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq,” Bergner said.

Golly, sure looks like that surge is a “failure”, and that Al Qaeda isn’t trying to do to Iraq what they did to Afghanistan under Clinton’s watch </sarcasm>.

Tell me again why the DhimmiRATs and the sycophant cut-and-runners among the RINO Senators want to retreat and defeat from Iraq so badly, they’re holding a sleepover. Is it because they would rather be slaves under dhimmitude and die under Sharia than suffer another term under Republican rule, much less conservative rule? Oh, I’m not questioning the patriotism of you lefties who support immediate retreat-and-defeat; after all, it’s pointless to question what does not exist.

July 17, 2007

Add Mitt Romney to the list of those looking at Illinois for fashion tips

by @ 8:08. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Slublog)

The only positive is that, unlike Blags, he “only” paid $300.

Just another reason why I’ll never be a pol; nothing is going to make me look good.

July 16, 2007

Expect Breck Girl to head to Illinois presently

by @ 19:28. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Sister Toldjah)

Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (DUmmieRAT) has been running up the makeup and travel bills lately. Of particular note is a $600 bill from his makeup artist initially paid for by the taxpayers of Illinois for services rendered when he proposed his latest budget, as well as a mounting bill for shuttling between Chicago and Springfield, the capital on a plane (hmmm, I seem to remember a certain ex-governor being pilloried for a couple trips on the state air fleet, and a certain governor, who promised to get rid of the state air fleet, not quite pilloried for making questionable trips on the state air fleet).

July 14, 2007

Gilmore is the weakest link

by @ 16:04. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – William Smith)

The Politico has broken the news that former Virginia governor and RNC chair Jim Gilmore has dropped out of the Republican Presidential primary race. In proving that poor preparation causes piss-poor performance, he said, “I have come to believe that it takes more than a positive vision for our nation’s future to successfully compete for the presidency. I believe that it takes years of preparation to put in place both the political and financial infrastructure to contest what amounts to a one-day national primary in February.”

Who’s next? The Other Thompson? McShame? One of the ‘Rats?

July 5, 2007

Since I didn’t get a response the first time…

by @ 19:58. Filed under NRE Polls, Politics - National.

…let’s see if throwing it up as a poll gets people to contemplate the folly of Nobody’s Senator’s “solution” to high oil prices, namely, attempt to apply the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to soverign nations. While I do give him a modicum of credit for placing the blame where it belongs, he has no concept of either market forces or soverignty.

Do you?

July 4, 2007

This is what it’s all about

by @ 7:27. Filed under Politics - National.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

July 2, 2007

But, but, but I thought Apples were invulnerable

by @ 14:46. Filed under Business, Politics - National.

(H/T – Pete)

It sure looks like our friends across the pond will have the iPhone much earlier than Apple had intended. The Times of London reports that hackers have had theoretical success in untethering the iPhone from AT&T, which would allow, among other things, people in Europe to use the iPhone much earlier than the end-of-the-year release date intended by Apple. Like Pete and unlike The Times, I won’t give you links to the hackers, but they’re pretty easy to find.

Hack on!

June 28, 2007

Amnesty dead, Volume 2

by @ 11:57. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

shamnestykillsm.jpg
(Pic courtesy Michelle Malkin, who would look good in that yellow tracksuit, via David Lunde)

I have good news and I have bad news regarding illegal immigration and the integrity of the southern border. The good news is that the amnesty/faux border security/faux anti-illegal-immigration bill failed to get final cloture 46-53 (no, that is not a misprint; 53 voted against allowing the final vote). That means the 12 20 however many million illegal aliens who are here plus however many million that would have snuck across the border between now and the end of the amnesty period and grabbed some forged documentation to claim their ill-gotten amnesty (H/T – Ace) because the detention-and-deportation process would have been shut down won’t get a path to citizenship. That means that a hideously-expensive microscopic “virtual” fence that would be not only easy to avoid, but almost certainly not defended (based on current lack of enforcement encouraged on the southern border) won’t be built. That means that hordes of “guest workers”, which has turned into the bane of Europe (side note, a lot of those Euro-Islamokazis instrumental in the slow-mo Caliphate-ization of Europe grew roots through that program) won’t be invited here to overstay their visas and become illegal again.

The bad news is that we’re back to the status quo; the same almost-complete lack of enforcement of the current immigration laws and borders that led us into this self-made “crisis”. We’re still going to have millions of illegal aliens here, and millions more walking across an invisible border, with an executive branch more interested in persecuting those few border agents who believe there should be a southern border than pursuing those who flaunt said border. The Cheddarsphere’s blogfather, Charlie Sykes, just said on his show that there will be political blowback in the form of the Unfairness Doctrine (side note; the bipartisan members of the federal P-I-G would’ve found another excuse to try to bring it back, and amnesty’s failure will not increase the chances of them being successful). The Cassandra-ish Wall Street Journal thinks that amnesty’s defeat (written yesterday) will make the Republican Party a minority party again (Really? I’ll come back to this one in a while because it does deserve a full-court fisking).

As for me, I’ll take the Hattori Hanzo sword to the neck of this thing and take the tsunami for (hopefully) just another 19 months. The alternative was much worse. Allow me to explain said alternative, especially for the edification of those few of you who thought that the McShame-Swimmer-Bush Amnesty Act was a good idea:
– The immediate loss of somewhere north of 12 million voters for the Republican Party, especially for those that supported amnesty, because they would have seen this as the final betrayal. After the 2008 slaughter, we would re-enter the 1850s politically, when there was no credible challenge to the Democratic Party. Unlike the 1850s, and unlike the late 1970s, I doubt the Dhimms will repeat the mistakes of allowing an opposition party enough air to breathe and get traction.
– Eventual American citizenship given to the 12 million 20 million illegal aliens most of Mexico’s population plus assorted others. For those that think that Republicans can battle for their votes by running on conservative values, guess again. Even the “conservative” party in Mexico advocates a larger role of government, especially federal government, than what currently exists here. That the Mexican government fails to deliver on said pandering is one of the major reasons why they head north, and woe be the party that doesn’t pander.
– The eventual breakup of the Union. The removal of the Southwest from the United States is, after all, the stated goal of La Raza, the major “Hispanic” partner of El Jefe Jorge Bush, Swimmer Kennedy, and the leadership of both parties.

June 26, 2007

Senate Stupidity part 2 – the Dhimms, especially Kohl, want blood for oil

by @ 16:33. Filed under Politics - National, War.

No, I am not making this one up. Nobody’s Senator introduced an amendment to the “CLEAN Energy Act” to make OPEC “illegal” (scroll down for the text). The money line – A foreign state engaged in conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States in any action brought to enforce this section.

It flew through the Senate 70-23, and it’s part of the bill pending the conference committee. A question for Nobody’s Senator, Russ el-Slimeroad, Hitlery Rotten Von Der Schlikmeister, Osama Hussein Obama, and the other 66 who voted for this; what happens if this is found Constitutional, we seize the assets of OPEC’s members, and they shut off the spigot in retaliation? Or better yet, those international forums you’re so fond of says we can’t seize those assets because it violates “international law”? Are you going to accept $20/gallon gas, are you going to open up drilling to replace the 50% of oil we won’t get anymore, or are you going to send the military on a blood-for-oil quest?

June 22, 2007

Mark this date on your calendars – 6/26/2007 (maybe) – UPDATE – or maybe not

by @ 21:02. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Ian)

WSMV-TV out of Nashville is quoting an unnamed source close to the Fred Thompson exploratory committee saying that Thompson will announce his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination at the Fall School building on Tuesday. That building, according to that source, will serve as the campaign’s national headquarters, with the lease already signed. Meanwhile, other unnamed sources in that exploratory committee are denying this, and Tennessee Republican Party Chair (former Thompson chief of staff) Bob Davis said, “There will not be an annoucement Tuesday.”

Revisions/extensions (10:05 pm 6/22/2007) – Per RedState, it’s not THE announcement. That’ll learn me to trust a presstitute that trusts a single anonymous source.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]