Sunday, May 31, 2009
Red Wings Take Game One Over Penguins
The killer stat, according to game analysis, is that the Red Wings won 71 percent of game faceoffs. Yeah...you're not going to win a hockey game nailing only 29 percent of faceoffs. The Red Wings effectively neutralized the talents of Penguin Sidney Crosby. They just shut him down. Ditto Crosby's teammate Evgeni Malkin, rendered all but ineffective by the Red Wings.
The Penguins had two power plays early in the second period and did nothing with them. Not making the most of one power play, we'll call it a mulligan. But failing to capitalize on two almost back-to-back power plays, well...don't foresee coming out the winner of the game.
An odd karmic fate bestowed upon the Penguins were two goals scored by Detroit that crossed the crease by deflecting off the skates of goalie Marc-Andre Fleury. Something like this in sports decides the winner of the game and is unique to hockey because ice is both unpredictable and unforgiving. It would almost be comical if it weren't so maddening. Golfers can, to some degree, read a golf green. Not so with ice. Ice is fickle and mischievous. Ice laughs and taunts those who use it as a surface on which to play a sport.
T.C. at Leather Penguin, a year ago...a year ago, mind you - after the Cup - said he suspected the Penguins would be in the playoffs this year. T.C. was amazingly prescient, which is why he's one of few people I consider an NHL and Hockey Guru.
Pittsburgh needs to win tonight and even up the games 1-1. They can't leave Detroit at 0-2, returning home for games three and four, expecting those games will be their leveling point. Saturday night's game - minus the two Detroit goals via odd karmic fate - would have been a tight game. Detroit, in my opinion, probably would have won 2-1 without the karmic fate of their two goals bouncing off the skates of Fleury.
The Penguins have to win tonight.
Labels: NHL 2008-2009
Obama Stimulus: Dead People Get Money
And if, as The Left has said all these years, that Trickle Down doesn't work, are there any Pbama Cultists who can explain to those of us with functioning brains how Trickle Up is supposed to work? What a pile of pure bullshit.
From Short News:
The Social Security Administration recently sent out over 52 million checks in the amount of $250 as part of the stimulus package. Due to a rushed schedule, the US Government ended up sending 8,000 to 10,000 checks to people who have already died.
From Investment News:
In an effort to energize the economy, stimulus checks are being mailed to millions of people. Unfortunately, thousands of the recipients are dead.
James Hagner, 83, of Orchard Beach, Md., re-ceived a stimulus check for his mother, Rose, who died in 1967. SSA spokesman Mark Lassiter said in a published report that officials rushing to distribute payments didn't thoroughly review all Social Security records.
Even though Ms. Hagner hadn't received a Social Security check since the Johnson administration, the agency didn't have an official record of her death. Therefore, Mr. Lassiter said her records fell into bureaucratic limbo, and she was sent a stimulus check.
It is more than a bit unsettling that it takes the government 40 years to figure out that someone died. And since the SSA has already admitted that thousands of other dead people also received checks, one has to question how many other checks that SSA doesn't know about were sent to the dead. (And who knows how many checks are still to be sent to the unliving.)
In another case, Antoinette Santopadre of Valley Stream, N.Y., received a $250 stimulus check made out not to her, as expected, but to her father, Romolo Romonini.
Mr. Romonini, an American citizen who went to Italy in 1933 and returned to the United States once, for a seven-month visit in 1969, died in Italy 34 years ago.
To make matters even stranger, the SSA later found out that he never even participated in the Social Security system.
Something more than a little odd is going on here. We all expect the enormous federal bureaucracy to spend money stupidly, but sending millions of dollars to the dead is even more wasteful than the $57,000 spent on gold-embossed playing cards for Air Force Two.
You have to admire the putrid Elitism from Pbama, Herr Biden and all the other Commiecrats. They live the Life of Riley while they demand and insist that average Americans make-do with less and cut back on their lifestyle. This is the whole grand agenda behind Socialism - creating a distinct ruling class run by Marxists who oppress hardworking average Americans.
Don't you enjoy how Pbama is trying to rush all his Fascist programs in to place?
It's always a good thing when things are rushed, isn't it? Why bother to take time to plan things out and make sure they get done correctly? Just rush ahead, eyes closed, fingers crossed and your head up your ass. This is Pbama's Hope and Change. Isn't it wonderful?
It's a good thing something like this didn't occur under a Republican President and a Republican Congress, because if it had - The Insane Liberal Clown Posse (ILCP) would have (rightfully so) called the Admin "incompetent."
We won't hear the Jackboot Pbama Cultists or the ILCP calling their False Prophet and his Admin incompetent. No. Barry would ask his Cultists to eat a shit sandwich - a literal turd between two slices of bread - and they would consume it with a smile on their faces and ask for "seconds."
Mancow Waterboarding A Hoax?
Pbama Cultists Sucked It Up! Suckers!
It's just like the Pbama Cultists and the Insane Liberal Clown Posse (ILCP) to run with a story before verifying it or doing the most basic form of fact-checking. "Facts? What are those," ask Pbama Cultists as they scratch their
Did Mancow Muller fake his waterboarding? It sure seems so. L.A. Times:
Word is out on the Web that Chicago radio talker Erich "Mancow" Muller may have totally faked his waterboarding.
According to Gawker, the whole thing — all six seconds of it — was a stunt.
PBAMA CULTISTS PWNED AGAIN!
BWA HA HA HA HA HA! I LOVE IT!
THE CULTISTS AND ILCP ARE SO EASY TO FOOL!
PBAMA CULTISTS ARE THE DUMBEST FUCKWADS ON THE ENTIRE PLANET!
In the end, there are two incontrovertible data points here: That Muller's publicist called the thing a hoax and said Muller intended to pretend he was drowning, and that the guy doing the waterboarding was by his own admission as unqualified to perform the procedure as one could possibly be.
Let's hope Keith Olberwiener has no chance at recovering his $10 Grand!
Way to go, Cultists. Don't fact-check or research anything. Keep talking and typing out of your anus. Keep showing the world you're the Brain-dead Freaks that everybody knows you are!
PBAMA CULTIST PWNED AGAIN! OH...IT'S FUNNY! THEY'LL BELIEVE ANYTHING! BWA HA HA HA HA!
Some Gays Now More Privileged Than Others. Is This Discrimination?
On this whole gay marriage-Prop 8-California Supreme Court ruling thingy:
Am I the only one who notices that now some gay people really are discriminated against? Some gay people really are Second Class Citizens. Yeah, they are. And they are Second Class Citizens due to their fellow married gays.
Some 18,000 gay married couples were grandfathered in - their marriage valid - when the California Supreme Court ruled and upheld Prop 8 with the caveat that those already married can stay married.
So now we have two separate classes: Gay married couples and gays who were DENIED marriage. This sure seems like INEQUALITY to me.
If equality is held to such a high degree by gays, and if they disdain discrimination as much as they claim they do, then the gay married couples should get divorced and not remarry until ALL their fellow gays can marry.
I haven't heard of any gay married couples getting divorced in order to protest the ruling by the Cali Supremes.
Do the gay married couples realize that they have become and represent what they formerly held in contempt? Because they are now enjoying the benefits of marriage that is being denied to their fellow gays. Oh, the Hypocrisy! Isn't if fabulous?
All you married gay couples...you're in a different class than your brothers and sisters who wanted to marry, but now cannot.
Will the married gays get a divorce in order to prove their solidarity with those who are not married? Gee, they sure would be hypocrites if they didn't, wouldn't they?
Irony is funny when it happens to Liberals, isn't it.
Labels: Gay Marriage
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Drop That Puck, Baby!
The first two games are in Detroit with games three and four in Pittsburgh.
This series is going to be a tough one for me to watch. I like the Red Wings, but I love the Penguins.
The NYT asks, Can the Penguins end the reign of the Red Wings?
Labels: NHL 2008-2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Obama Politics Using Taxpayer Money
As long as it's not his money.
From FOX News:
...when the president hit the road Tuesday for a two-day fundraising tour to pack the party coffers, he also was racking up a $265,000 partisan bill for just one leg of the trip, according to a watchdog group -- part of which taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, will have to pay.
But sandwiched between political appearances, Obama squeezed in some quick public remarks on energy, ironically before burning fuel to Los Angeles, at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base. It was a key stop, because it gives the entire trip an air of official legitimacy and allows the White House to write off part of the trip under rules governing travel[.]
The rest, though, is all politics. And, if history is any gauge, the American taxpayer will pick up a large portion of the tab.
[It is] estimated that the purely political part of the trip -- the distance from Las Vegas to Los Angeles and back, with no public events -- would cost at least $265,000, just for air travel expenses.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the Democratic National Committee is paying its share for this trip.
"The DNC is paying 100 percent of the legally mandated costs for the trip from Nevada to California, and we are complying fully with all legal requirements," Vietor wrote in an e-mail to FOXNews.com.
But reimbursement for political activities involves a tricky formula, and actual reimbursements typically come nowhere close to compensating the government for the cost of such trips. Secret Service costs, for one, are always footed by the government.
"No one would suggest he not travel," said Leslie Paige, media director for Citizens Against Government Waste. "What is most important for taxpayers is how much is it costing for this stuff."
Sotomayor's Virulent And Rabid
Anti-Second Amendment Views
Sotomayor on the Supreme Court: A Gun-grabber’s Dream Come True
Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor believes that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. That’s the good news. Now here’s the bad. She thinks American citizens don’t have the right to own firearms.
As a graduate student at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote a these entitled “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.” In the text, Sotomayor makes the argument that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes only the military has this right. According to Sotomayor, it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
In 2004, in U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” In another case, Sotomayor ruled that it is illegal for citizens to keep nunchakus in their homes.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said on Wednesday that “Judge Sotomayor’s position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama’s claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service,” reports CBS News.
“Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms,” said Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute.
Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council believes her nomination amounts to “a declaration of war against America’s gun owners.”
Earlier this year, Sotomayor ruled that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, according to CNSNews. In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
From PR Newswire:
Failing to get traction for his anti-gun agenda in Congress, Barack Obama is trying instead to stack the federal courts with liberal anti-gunners, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
"President Obama's gun prohibitionist agenda has fallen on deaf ears on Capitol Hill," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "His administration's attempt to revive the ban on semiautomatic sporting rifles by exploiting the Mexican drug war was a bust. He had to sign legislation allowing guns for personal protection in national parks, even after his Justice Department refused to defend the Interior Department against a lawsuit that prevented an earlier firearms rule from taking effect.
"But now he is picking judicial nominees that will almost certainly legislate from the bench," he continued. "Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has already ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. We've learned that Sotomayor's nomination is supported by ACORN, the publicly-funded anti-gun group that supported a Jersey City gun control ordinance that was struck down by the court.
"Obama's nomination of David Hamilton to a position on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is equally troubling," Gottlieb added, "because Hamilton reportedly is a former ACORN fundraiser. Even the president once worked with the anti-gun rights ACORN as a leadership trainer."
Obama Payback: Names Three Big
Money Bundlers As Ambassadors
Three of President Obama's top fundraisers are getting plum jobs as United States ambassadors.
Among the 12 ambassadors named last night by the White House, three -- Charles Rivkin, Louis Susman and John Roos -- were so-called "bundlers" for candidate Obama.
Rivkin (named ambassador to France) and Roos (named ambassador to Japan) both raised $500,000 or more for Obama, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Susman (named ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) raised between $100,000 and $200,000 for Obama's campaign.
Several administration officials, including Valerie Jarrett, Greg Craig, Eric Holder and Tina Tchen, for example, were also Obama bundlers.
A return to ethics in government.
Hope and Change.
Minnesota's Vacant Senate Seat
Ranks Highly Favorable In Polls
Minnesota's empty U.S. Senate Seat receives the highest approval ratings of any politician of all time according to two recently released polls. Both the Razzmussen and Zobgy polls rank the empty Senate Seat at 99.9% approval.
The seat remains empty due to the legal battle between Republican Norm Coleman who was seeking re-election and his Democrat challenger Al Franken.
The survey consisted of a random sampling of 250,191 Minnesota citizens and Al Franken, Franken represented the .1 percent dissenting majority of the poll. "That empty senate seat should be mine, goddamnit," screamed Franken at a pollster.
"I've never seen such a huge approval number for any politician," said Jim McJim, Senior Executive with the Zobgy organization, one of the nation's most reliable polls. "It's astonishing that an empty seat has such favorable reactions," said McJim.
Razzmussen reported almost identical findings according to spokesperson Leather Hocklear. "The empty senate seat can do no wrong in the eyes of the constituents," said Hocklear.
Poll respondents seem to agree. "I think the empty senate seat is doing a great job, really representing the average wage-earner," said Stan Kobb, an assistant manager at Chubbies, a commercial tire distributor.
University of Minnesota College student Glys LaFebre agrees. "I can't name one position or decision the empty seat has made that I disagree with."
"The empty senate seat gives me hope and change," said retired mill worker Filnrow Spatcus.
The halcyon days of the empty senate seat may come to an abrupt end. Although Coleman's options still include various legal avenues of appeal, whether he follows through on them or not is unknown.
What is known is that the empty senate seat enjoys overwhelming popularity unlike any candidate or politician the world has ever seen.
Hurricane Season Is Here!
The beginning of the Atlantic Ocean hurricane season is still a few days away, but the first tropical depression has formed in the Atlantic Ocean, off of the Virginia coast. According to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami, Florida, tropical depression No. 1 isn't predicted to make landfall as it travels north along the East Coast.
Obama's Jackboot Thugs Forcibly Remove Reporter From Air Force One Press Area
Here's how Obama's Jackbooted Goon Squad Thugs treat a credentialed reporter:
From NBC L.A.:
A reporter for a small newspaper was forcibly removed from a press area near Air Force One shortly before President Barack Obama arrived at Los Angeles International Airport to depart California early Thursday.
Secret Service personnel remove Brenda Lee from near Air Force One after Lee attempted to give President Obama a letter, Thursday May 28, 2009, at LAX.
Airport security officers carried the woman away by the feet and arms as she protested her removal.
She later identified herself as Brenda Lee, a writer for the Georgia Informer in Macon and said she has White House press credentials. The newspaper's Web site says it is a monthly publication, and a Brenda Lee column is posted on it.
Calls to the newspaper and the White House press office were not immediately returned.
Lee said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that she wanted to hand Obama a letter urging him "to take a stand for traditional marriage."
She said she asked a Secret Service agent to give the president her letter, but he refused and referred her to a White House staffer. Lee said she refused to give the staffer the letter.
"I said, 'I'll take my chances if (the president) comes by here,'" said Lee, who identified herself as a Roman Catholic priestess who lives in Anaheim, Calif. "He became annoyed that I wouldn't give him the letter."
Lee, who was wearing what she described as a cassock, said she protested when she was asked to leave.
"I said, 'Why are you bothering me?' They escorted me outside the gate," she said.
She said security officers allowed her to return when she promised she would not yell or wave, but then other officers arrived and told her to leave.
"I said, 'I'm not leaving,'" she said. "They tried to drag me out."
Two officers then picked her up and carried her out. An Associated Press photographer photographed the incident.
"I was afraid you could see under my clothes," she said, her voice choking up.
Lee, who said this was the second presidential event she has covered, was later released.
Liberal radio and the Liberal MSM pundits (Olberwiener, Butch Maddox, et al) would be covering this story 48/14 (that's twice as much as 24/7) if the above incident had happened under a Republican President.
$9 Trillion Dollars Still Missing,
Federal Reserve Can't Find It
A billion here, a billion there.
W. Bush spent a few billion and the Liberals reacted like rabid, fiscally conservative zombies.
$9 Billion dollars went "missing" in Iraq and The Left threw a fit. I was right with them...where did that $9 Billion go?
It's a different story when money - billions and trillions - goes missing under Liberal Leadership (heh...Liberal Leadership...as if there is such a thing).
"I got lots of money. How many trillion do you want?
Let's just keep this transaction off the books, okay?"
$300 Billion goes missing under Barack Hussein Obama, Junior and the MSM buries it and The Left utters not a critical word.
A short while ago I wrote about this fascinating missing $9 Billion dollars. A few others wrote about it too.
The missing $9 Trillion is slowly receiving more attention. Examiner:
The Inspector General of the Federal Reserve in the video below acknowledges that trillions of dollars cannot be accounted for. The astonishing five-minute clip is taken from a Congressional hearing where Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman is questioned by Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida on May 6th about huge amounts of money for which the Federal Reserve is responsible.
The Inspector General avoids answering almost every question asked by the Congressman. In fact, she appears in this video clip to know less about the finances of the Federal Reserve than Congressman Grayson.
Among the many important questions raised, Grayson requests information on the Bloomberg report that many trillion of dollars in credit have been extended by the Federal Reserve. When the Inspector General avoids answering, Grayson states, "If you're not responsible for investigating that, who is?" Once again, she avoids the question stating, "We've not gotten to a specific level of detail to really be in a position to respond to your question."
At another point, Coleman answers a further question with, "We are not in a position to say whether there are losses." Yet if the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve cannot account for trillions of dollars extended, who can?
And it occurred on Obama's Watch.
I don't have to mention how observantly quiet The Pbama Cultists are on this missing $9 Trillion dollars. Partisan politics has a funny and hypocritical way in how Pbama Cultists apply different standards to those who agree with them and those who disagree with them.
Roland Burris Says Don't Blame Him,
Blame Impeachment Board For Not
Asking The Right Questions
Blago and Burris in happier days.
Commiecrat U.S. Senator Roland Burris, who replaced the vacancy of Barack Hussein Pbama, Junior says don't blame him, blame the impeachment board. Chicago Tribune:
U.S. Sen. Roland Burris today said he shouldn’t be blamed for any lack of candor while under oath earlier this year before a special Illinois House panel about his appointment to the seat because his duty was only to answer the questions posed by the committee members and nothing more.
Briefly speaking to reporters at the Illinois Department of Employment Security, Burris said it was not his responsibility during his January appearance before the panel weighing then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment to go out of his way to describe how he got Blagojevich’s appointment.
“See, you all have got it all backwards,” Burris said. “It is not upon a person who is testifying to go out of his way on anything. It is the person who has to ask the questions.”
It was this week's release of a transcript and audio of a Nov. 13 Burris conversation with Robert Blagojevich, secretly recorded by federal investigators, that has led to the latest layer of the senator’s evolving descriptions regarding the Senate appointment. Then-Gov. Blagojevich picked Burris for the Senate three weeks after Blagojevich’s arrest.
On the recording, Burris says giving money to Blagojevich would look like he bought the Senate seat if Burris won the appointment. At the same time, he discusses potential less-obvious fundraising ways to help Blagojevich. Burris now says those offers of help were a ruse to “placate” Blagojevich and keep his appointment chances alive and that there was never any intent to donate money.
During that January impeachment hearing, Burris also was asked if he was aware of any direct or indirect quid pro quo of trading the Senate seat for fundraising dollars. Burris said he was not—although he now says the transcript made clear he didn’t want to be involved in “pay-for-play.”
The important question seems to be phrased very clearly: was he aware of any direct or indirect quid pro quo of trading the Senate seat for fundraising dollars. Burris said he was not. Yet the transcript and audio of Burris' own words seem to contradict him.
Illinois State Legislators are now calling for Burris to resign.
Burris seems like the kind of guy who blames and faults a woman for getting raped with the absurd and sick view that it was the way that she was dressed and the way she looked that resulted in her rape.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Obama's Grand Hoax Of Withdrawing
Troops From Iraq And Afghanistan
He's not my Führer!
As a presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, Junior said many times during the course of his campaign that he would "bring the Troops home now."
Americans now realize just how loosely Obama's subjective definition is of "now." Barry has a hard time grasping the concept of the meaning of the word "now." For Barry, "now" apparently means an undefined amount of time which could be quite lengthy...quite lengthy indeed.
January 30, 2007, Obama said bring the Troops home by spring of 2008. MSNBC:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq by spring 2008 to end “a foreign policy disaster,” but he stopped short of endorsing a cutoff in funds.
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, in a speech in Iowa Wednesday, called for the immediate drawdown of U.S. combat troops in Iraq.
Under the Illinois senator's plan, combat brigades would immediately begin withdrawing one or two brigades at a time, with a complete withdrawal by the end of 2008, CNN reported.
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said in his speech. “Not in six months or one year -- now.”
February 27, 2009, Obama's plan leaves over 50,000 Troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. AntiWar:
As we reported yesterday, President Obama’s Iraq “withdrawal” plan will leave up to 50,000 troops in a warzone engaging in combat missions. Today the president detailed the plans for members of Congress, and said the remnant forces, which would remain for an indefinite period of time, will be in Iraq to “advise Iraqi troops and protect US interests.”
Antiwar groups found him too timid, saying Mr. Obama always has left room for keeping troops in Iraq longer than many voters have anticipated.
"There's a lot of disappointment on the part of the peace movement," said Barbra Bearden, spokeswoman for the national group Peace Action, which has started a "No soldier left behind" program to pressure Mr. Obama to fully remove troops.
...We now learn that U.S. Troops may be in Iraq and Afghanistan FOR DECADES! APee:
The United States could have fighting forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade, the top Army officer said, even though a signed agreement requires all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq by 2012.
Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, said Tuesday his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.
I try to listen for and I try to hear - but I do not - the obedient and dutiful Pbama Cultists screaming:
"Out of Iraq Now!"
"Bring our Troops home now!"
"No More Blood For Oil!"
"No More American Imperialism!"
"Obama is a tool of Big Oil!"
Ahhhhhh, the wonderful hypocrisy of the Pbama Cultists and the Insane Liberal Clown Posse. They are so heavily invested in believing their Führer and so steeped in denial they won't even notice they are being led to the gas chambers.
Would You Allow A Surgeon With A
40% Success Rate To Operate On You?
I am especially asking this question to all the Pbama Cultists and the Insane Liberal Clown Posse (ILCP).
If your test score is 40 out of 100, have you passed or failed the test? Again, I ask the Pbama Cultists and the ILCP.
Would you consider someone successful - would you consider them adept in their profession - if what they did was right only 40 percent of the time?
The reason I bring up these questions is because Sonia Sotomayor's rulings have BEEN REVERSED BY HIGHER COURTS 60 PERCENT OF THE TIME. Washington Times:
With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
Sonia BolognaMayor: She's right only 40 percent of the time.
Take, for instance, the Ricci case and Sotomayor's ruling. From The Telegraph:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Court of Appeals on New York's second circuit, will become a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. But before that happens, you'll hear a lot about a man called Frank Ricci.
Ricci is a fireman who happens to be dyslexic but still managed to come sixth out of 77 candidates who took an exam to become a lieutenant. But the city of New Haven, Connecticut - home of Yale, where Judge Sotomayor studied law - threw out the test because none of the 19 black firefighters who took it qualified for promotion.
After no one was promoted, Ricci and 17 other non-black firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued the city alleging racial discrimination. Sotomayor was one of seven judges (six were against) who wrote a one-page judgement throwing the test results out and denying Ricci his promotion.
Sotomayer has a powerful life story, so too does Ricci, whose case has already been heard by the Supreme Court. Most analysts believe the ruling of Sotomayor and her colleagues will be overturned.
Orrin Hatch Says Sonia Sotomayor
"May be an activist judge."
Sen. Orrin Hatch said Tuesday Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor may be an "activist judge," and that just because he voted previously to confirm her to other courts doesn't mean he will vote for her now.
When Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary Committee 11 years ago, he (and Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah) voted to confirm Sotomayor to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals — even though other Republicans held up her nomination for a year. Hatch also earlier voted to confirm her as a federal district-court judge.
But he told MSNBC that does not necessarily mean he will vote for her now.
"In 1998, I did vote to confirm her, because I believe in giving the president (Bill Clinton at the time) due deference, especially for circuit courts of appeals nominations. But now we are talking about the most important court on earth. We're talking about the court of last resort," Hatch said.
Orrin Hatch. Maybe he's not The Chief Apologist for The Republican Party?
Who knew Mr. Hatch possessed such gusto? I mean, Hatch is the person I call The Chief Apologist for The Republican Party. And he has double-duty, doing the work of The Second-In-Command Chief Apologist for the Republican Party who was Arlen Specter who defected from the Republican Party and rejoined the party of his roots, The Commiecrat Party.
Hatch has plenty of time to reverse himself and his words and become a cheerleader for Sotomayor. If he does, it will surprise me nyet. It's not difficult for me to imagine him saying to his fellow Republicans, "She's not so bad. It could be a lot worse, guys. We need to show bipartisanship and support her."
Well, for the time being, congratulations Senator Hatch. I hope you have the courage and cahones to vote against Sotomayor when the time comes.
American Flag Displayed Deemed Offensive
For one Arlington woman, the answer was "no" after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.
Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.
When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. "I was just totally speechless. I was like, 'You're kidding me,'" McLucas said.
McLucas' husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.
Stifling a cry, McLucas said, "I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing."
McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said that supervisor took down the flag herself.
"The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor," McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher-ups had told her some patients' families and visitors had also complained.
"I was told it wouldn't matter if it was only one person," she said. "It would have to come down."
McLucas said hospital bosses told her as far as patriotism was concerned, the flag flying outside the hospital building would have to suffice.
"I find it very frightening because if I can't display my flag," McLucas asked, "what other freedoms will I lose before all is said and done?"
Kindred Hospital has now reversed itself. Dallas News:
Kindred Hospital and its corporate bosses in Kentucky got a lesson in patriotism Wednesday.
After a thorough roasting in the blogosphere, Kindred officials decided to let hospital supervisor Debbie McLucas put an American flag back on her office wall.
"We have invited the employee (McLucas) to put the flag back up," Kindred said in a brief press release.
The Kindred Hospital press release said the company is working to resolve this "isolated incident between two employees."
I love the wording from the hospital...they "invited" McLucas to put the flag back up.
I invite the Kindred hospital higher-ups and the "formerly from Africa" supervisor to wrap their collective lips around my anus.
U.S. Vat Tax On The Way?
Obama Admits "We're broke."
Are we headed for a national sales tax, often referred to as a Value Added Tax? And...uh...can some Liberal Tax and Spender point out to all of us where exactly is the ADDED VALUE?
From The WaPoop:
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."
A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.
A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. [What this means is that a VAT tax is likely to be in the mix. - Drake] "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.
"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."
We can pretty much guess a VAT tax will be implemented because Barack Hussein Pbama, Junior has to somehow pay for his trillions of dollars of deficit and debt.
Remember when, prior to the presidential election, Liberals and Pbama Cultists scoffed at the allegation that their Messyiah would spend trillions of dollars? They denied it, said it was "rumor-mongering." Well now...last I checked, Pbama has racked up trillions and trillions of debt and deficit.
Well...Pbama certainly has spent trillions, there's no doubt about that, he even admits "we're broke." The NY Post:
President Obama has checked the accounting ledgers and come to a disturbing conclusion: The government is broke.
"We are out of money," Obama said during a lengthy interview with C-SPAN that aired [on the morning of May 23].
He was responding to a question about the country's $11 trillion national debt, which is the money the government borrows long-term, and the potential $1.7 trillion budget deficit, which is the gap between tax revenue and current spending.
How long before we hit a quadrillion dollars of debt?
Napolitano's Canadian Apology Tour
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano has got to...just has got to...be the most stupid woman in the political arena of all time. Clueless, dense and stupid define her.
She continues her apology tour, apologizing again to Canada for when she said the terrorists of September 11, 2001 entered the U.S. from Canada. APee:
Napolitano was trying to get past the diplomatic gaffe after an interview last month with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in which she said—incorrectly—that the Sept. 11 terrorists crossed into the U.S. from Canada. The comments caused an uproar in America's neighbor to the north.
The Sept. 11 commission found that none came through Canada. But other extremists have, such as the would-be millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian convicted on multiple counts for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport around Jan. 1, 2000.
"We know, and I know, that 9-11 terrorists did not cross the Canadian border. I regret that the Canadian media only seems to hear that earlier misstatement by me to that effect," Napolitano said at a brief news conference, adding that she wants to move on.
The only reason this stupid sow now knows that September 11 terrorists did not cross the Canadian border into the U.S. is BECAUSE SHE WAS CORRECTED AFTER SHE SAID THEY HAD.
If she were part of any Republican Administration, she would have been booted from her position long ago, shamed and ridiculed by The Left for her stupidity and cluelessness.
Do you feel Janet is the right person to run DHS? Do you think she is qualified and will protect us? Because I don't. I'm not even sure she's learned the big fork next to the plate is not a butt scratcher.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor: Affirmative Action Justice
On Tuesday, Dear Leader His Excellency Pbama picked Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.
My god, people, we can't have an Affirmative Action Spic on the Supreme Court! Hell, The Left said we couldn't have a Spic as Attorney General with Alberto Gonzales, so how could we possibly have a Spic on the Supreme Court?
And ugly! Anal-hemorrhoid-ass ugly this Sonia Sotomayor is! She didn't get where she is because of her looks, no, it was all on Affirmative Action, baby, all Affirmative Action. And you know it!
sexually harassed because...well...just look at her!
Look, Bolognamayor got where she is because of Affirmative Action. She is not an intellectual giant by any means and she is quite the reverse racist. From The NYT:
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
* "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
What in the hell does that mean? The law is the law.
Remember, for the past eight years one of the mainstay platitudes we heard from The Left is, "The Rule of Law...The Rule of Law." Well then, the Rule of Law is blind to gender, sex, age, ethnicity and just about everything else under the sun. But not with Sonia Bolognamayor. She says a female Spic can reach a conclusion better than a white male and a white woman. What a prejudiced cunt.
The uber-Liberal sites such as Media Matters and The HuffPuffPoo (no, I'm not linking to them) are desperately trying to spin Sotomayor's comment of "court of appeals is where policy is made," into something that is being misrepresented or exploited. Gee, The Left never misrepresents or exploits anything or any one, do they?
The thing is, her comment on the court of appeals is where policy is made is NOT being taken out of context or misrepresented by her critics.
If there was nothing wrong with her comment, why did she add to it, “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
She knew her words are not in step with how the judicial branch of our country is supposed to work. That it has been hi-jacked by judicial activism - the kind embraced and promoted by this Affirmative Action Spic - is obvious, which is why she said what she said.
She also made a law firm apologize for what she BELIEVED were discriminatory words. What a fucking thin-skinned cunt.
Awwwww...Sotocunt says reading Nancy Drew mysteries are what influenced her to go into law. Isn't that precious? Uh, wait, it's not...it's fucking stupid. What a dumb bitch. And The Left poked fun of W. Bush reading "My Pet Goat" and we have a Supreme Court nominee who says it was Nancy Drew that influenced her to go into law? What douche bag Sotocunt is.
Nancy Drew And The Mysterious Affirmative Action SCOTUS Nominee
"But Dave, but Dave," the Pillow Biting Pbama Cultists retort, "it was President George H. W. Bush who first appointed her." Yeah, as a FAVOR to the late Dan Moynihan. The Examiner:
Just why did the first President Bush nominate Sotomayor to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York? The answer, after discussing the issue with veterans of the first Bush administration, is pure politics, with a generous helping of horse-trading thrown in.
The first thing you have to understand is how judges are nominated to the federal district courts, which are below the circuit courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. The higher courts are often the stage for ideologically-based confirmation fights. The lower district courts, are, in the words of one former Bush official, "darn near patronage jobs."
...in 1991, when Sotomayor was nominated, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and the two senators from New York were Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Alphonse D'Amato.
By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D'Amato had a longstanding arrangement. "It was a special deal whereby D'Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats," another former Bush official told me. "That was a deal that preceded President Bush I, so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees." That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.
And at that moment, in 1991, it was Moynihan's turn to choose, and his choice was Sotomayor. There is no evidence that anyone in the Bush I White House or Justice Department thought Sotomayor was a conservative, or even a moderate, but no one wanted a fight with Moynihan. "She was not our first choice," recalls a third Bush I official, "but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position -- essentially someone we had to go with."
Sotomayor is woefully unqualified and inexperienced to sit on the Supreme Court. Just as woefully unqualified and inexperienced as is Hussein Pbama Junior to sit in the White House. And THAT is why he picked her.
Senate Republicans should vote en masse against her nomination. Republicans should block and attempt to obstruct every single appointment and law that Pbama and his Marxist Congress want to pass over the next three-and-one-half years. But don't bet the farm that Republicans will do the right thing in opposing Sotocunt. I'm sure the Moderates and RINOs will be only too eager to confirm her. And this is what separates the Moderates and RINOs from the true Conservatives.
Obama To Name Cyber Czar
The Illegal and Illegitimate Prednint is gearing up to name a Cyber Czar. The NYT:
President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will create a "cyber czar," a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's government-run and private computer networks, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.
The adviser will have the most comprehensive mandate granted to such an official to date and will probably be a member of the National Security Council but will report to the national security adviser as well as the senior White House economic adviser, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are not final.
Remember this one thing, just this one thing: When the U.S. is hit with a cyber attack - and we will be - and it fucks up the entire country...remember who is at fault. Remember the person who is responsible. Remember who is the correct individual to target with blame:
This is the Fascist to blame.
California Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Ban Against Gay Marriage
As The Liberals like to say when a ruling goes their way, the ruling by California's Supreme Court to Constitutionally ban gay marriage is, "DEMOCRACY IN ACTION."
On Tuesday, the Cali Supreme voted BY A 6 TO 1 RATIO - - - SIX TO ONE! - - - to uphold Prop 8 which is what the VOTERS in California supported in the November 2008 election.
From FOX News:
The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters' rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.
Actually, I am neither for nor against gay marriage. I do not accept the premise given by gay people promoting gay marriage.
I am against the rationale given by those who support gay marriage, often their scenario being if one partner is comatose in an emergency room then the other partner may be shut out of, and refused visitation rights - and other rights - by the family of the comatose patient.
All the reasons given in support of gay marriage can be easily accomplished with each partner giving the other partner Power of Attorney. It's as simple as that. And this is why I do not accept the premise given by gays as to why they should be entitled - and yes, it is an entitlement - to marriage.
The other part of the argument is gay people comparing what they believe is discrimination to discrimination during the struggle for Civil Rights. To say gay people experience the same discrimination that Blacks have experienced is just a slap in the face to those who fought for Civil Rights. It should be an insult to every Black person that gay people have the audacity to compare their "discrimination" to the discrimination experienced by Black Americans. There is no similarity at all.
Look...nobody can hide their skin color. But no one knows if you're gay, straight, bi or whatever. And no one is asking you to hide your preference. NO ONE CAN TELL YOU'RE GAY OR STRAIGHT BY YOUR APPEARANCE. (Well, other than the really flamboyant crowd.)
You will notice that when Prop 8 passed - overwhelmingly passed by the voters of California - The Left took their angst out on the Religious Right. I find it amusing that The Left never took their angst and rage out at large the voting bloc of Blacks and Latinos who supported Prop 8. Why is this? The Left will easily attack and commit property damage on places of worship and people of faith, but The Left made sure they did not criticize the large Black and Latino crowd that supported Prop 8. The Left wouldn't be afraid of them Blacks and Latinos now, would they?
There is no discrimination against gay people. It doesn't exist. If it does, it exists only in the mind of the person who wrongly perceives it. And it's all in the perception. In my life I've encountered a couple of guys who, on the surface, seemed to me to be gay. They weren't. They were married and had children.
Perception is not always true or accurate. Misperception is almost always false and unfounded.
I don't care what two - or even three or four - consenting adults do in the bedroom. But don't try to play the Discrimination Card as a reason to legalize gay marriage. It's a false and phony premise.
The majority of people in California voted for supporting Prop 8. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.
The gays did not like WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD TO SAY, so they challenged it. The Cali Supremes did their job and SUPPORTED THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. This is DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!
It's sweet when Liberals get a taste of their own medicine (and again, that would be DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!) I love it. I just love it.
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.