I don't see how anybody can't laugh out loud at even the remote PROSPECT of a "Dodd-Frank" bill. I mean come on, are they friggin' kidding me?

And shades of Pelosi and ObamaCare with that pass-it-and-then-we'll-tell-you nonsense. It's total bullshit. Politics is at a new low. This country should be in full on revolt mode, and every retard in congress should get voted straight out, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Nobody's job should be safe. Out, out, out.

They're all retards.

Speaking of 2010...Liberty. I'm finding more and more people who aren't afraid to speak about the financial blunders and cluelessness of these Democrats. A pair of traveling salesmen came by my office yesterday just to fax something, so there was no real risk of pissing off a good client or anything like that. I probed and, sure enough, they think Obama is clueless and had no problem talking about it. They were in the health care industry, by the way.

quote:

This country should be in full on revolt mode, and every retard in congress should get voted straight out, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I still chuckle every time Obama's poll numbers come out. Instead of cheering the fact that 52% disapprove, I wonder what the hell those other 48% retards could be thinking.

It sounds like Brother Hitchens is finally catching up to thalo.net. Christopher Hitchens Evolves by B.J. Bethel

Rush was talking about this ruling this morning. I'm still trying to find the text of the ruling. He said to pay particular attention to pages 42-46. He also said that Clarence Thomas' concurrent opinion was worth a read. I don't know if that's pages 42 to 46 or if that's a different document.

The thing to note about the Second Amendment, this is one that applies to the states. It does not read "Congress shall not." It says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Although I think the First Amendment has been steadily re-defined to mean "States shall make no law," the actual amendment reads as thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That means the states, if they like, can prohibit the exercise of free speech and can establish religion, as it had been established in various of the states prior to the adoption of the Constitution and I'm pretty sure after for a time as well. But they can't restrict the right to bear arms. But as Rush said regarding the ruling, it's happy news that the 2nd Amendment was upheld, but that it was not a 9 to nothing ruling shows just how far the unconstitutional and ugly ideology of the left has progressed.

It's true. Theoretically, Utah could try to declare itself a Mormon State, with a state religion. They could pass laws to abridge freedom of speech and squelch anything that didn't put forward a happy Mormon face. They could declare a curfew for members of other religions and not let them assemble in groups of 3 or 4.

They could try. But you'd have an awful lot of cases going to FEDERAL court for infringement of rights. Probably the supreme court. People can certainly vote with their feet, and LEAVE Utah, but they can also petition the FEDERAL government for redress of grievances.

This is what happened here with the second amendment. States who infringe the right to keep and bear arms, can be challenged. As it was in DC.

New York should be next. New York and especially NY City gun laws are ridiculous, and they need to allow nonresidents to get permits and carry. You infringe the rights of responsible citizens when you say they can't come into your state armed, while allowing your residents to be armed by permit. That's discrimination. That's saying an Iowan visiting NY has fewer civil rights than a resident, which while not illegal, violates the spirit of a founding idea. A founder would have thought the Union weak indeed were he to have to disarm upon entering another state. That would be unthinkable.

Some general Facebook observations.

I think you are quite right. Excellent analysis. Their [the Left's] perfection is always just around the corner, as you said. At the core of Leftism is a very sordid belief. It states that the suffering imposed on people today is sort of a "rooting out" process; a necessary evil on the way to Utopia tomorrow. But instead all we get are ever more intensive levels of suffering and "rooting out" as the Marxist-socialist plan continues to fail, as it must because it is not based on facts, logic, or a real-world conception of people.

The Left is a dangerously naive and somewhat child-like ideology. The left, at heart, is about taking various human attributes that do exist and super-sizing them into something that inevitably becomes dysfunctional. They over-simplify. For whatever reason, they are enamored with simple and simplistic solutions. The nitty gritty realities of life become not a refutation of their ideas, but a sign that if only all people believed as they did, then the problems of society would cease. This gives them (in their own minds) great license to impose themselves on the rest of us.

Besides just considerations of raw power, the ideology of the left is inherently about exaggeration and extremism. It's about taking the 5% that is true in any situation and blowing it up to 100%. It's selective filtering. But there will usually be a small core truth to whatever the Left says even while they willfully (or naively) ignore the 95% that doesn't support their "vision." That is why propaganda is so important to the Left. Their "vision" is contradicted at every level by reality. But feelings of moral superiority help to keep this strident "vision" alive. It all gets exaggerated and super-sized until, as they say, the "perfect" becomes the enemy of the "good." In a "Progressive" attempt to build, they quite often do little but destroy.

It is the Left who desperately needs to understand the truism of "moderation in all things." Concerning "visions," for example, it's more than okay to have a belief in a vision and in the future. But super-size that belief and put it beyond the realm of real-word verification (or refutation) and you raise it to the level of naive kool-aid. It's okay to think of human beings as good, but super-size that notion and forget about the inherent dark traits of humans and you leave "visions" forever in a state of failure where the only way to rescue them is to blame people for being people. (The history of the left is that their "vision" remains intact while people themselves become expendable.)

The "social" aspect of being human (as any good capitalist knows...you can't run a successful business by being anti-social, although you can run a socialist country that way) is good. But you can't, and shouldn't, try to run society in such a way where government is like a Big Brother, a Father, or a Mother.

The left is an extremist ideology that does not contain the traits of temperance, equanimity, or even-handedness. It's all hard-line stuff. It's always a goal of societal perfection. And this is an impossible goal. Again, there's nothing wrong with improvement. Our society is based on it. But super-size this idea, make it a somewhat naive kool-aid "vision," and you get an unhealthy striving for perfection where mere "good" is thrown out in a naive and destructive attempt for perfection. And this ushers in despots because with the left *everything* becomes political which, as Jonah Goldberg notes, is one of the defining characteristics of an intolerant totalitarian state. If every act has political overtones, there is little room then for individuality or true freedom. We all become slaves to some overbearing "vision." No thanks.

Hitler's idea of "racial purity," for example, is little different from the left's idea of achieving purity in other areas of life (the energy sector, the financial sector, the education sector, etc.). Different subjects, same disease.

Holy crap, I wouldn't confirm Kagan to be a crossing guard or a waitress, much less a supreme court justice. She comes off as a complete moron. A political animal, but in the sense of a stupid school board nominee. She seems totally out of her league. She's dumbing it down... which means one thing: she's running cover for some serious liberal ideology.

That Israeli justice she worships, by the way, has been called "The worst judge in the world" by Robert Bork. A guy who I really do respect in terms of his legal mind.

Barack nominated this woman because she has no judicial record to dissect. It's playing politics with the office. The supreme court is one place we do need our elite, ivory tower legal intellectuals.

But Kagan? I wouldn't trust her to make a sandwich, much less a legal decision.

What's great is how when senators grandstand, they show what complete and utter idiots they are. Take a good long look, America. These are the guys you put in office. Time to get them all out, out, out.

This is perhaps a good inside scoop article that explains why General McChrystal (who voted for Obama and was sort of a politically correct rube) would invite Rolling Stone into his camp: Who Betray Us.

quote:

So what's a soldier to do when a president hand-picks him to lead the charge in combat and then allows lower-echelon cockroaches to eat his lunch? McChrystal did what any good guerrilla fighter would do: He let another insect carry a poison pill back to a dysfunctional nest. Indeed, General McChrystal performed one final service for his country: He used a press nitwit to expose a confederacy of national security dunces using the prescribed "soft" tactics -- things like toxic ridicule.

The word is that every single military person who has come in contact with Obama thinks Obama is incompetent. More juicy stuff:

quote:

Any idea that McChrystal was insubordinate or threatened civilian authority is bravo sierra, as they say in the barracks. The general simply raised the blinds and let in some light. He even helped the young president to grow up a bit. On the day Obama let his field commander go, the president used the word "war" to describe the Afghan conflict. That's progress! Obama then appointed a third field commander in eighteen months; demoting the CENTCOM commander to replace McChrystal in Kabul.

And yes, the new guy is the old David Petraeus, who, when serving in Iraq under George Bush, was vilified by the left, including then-Senator Obama, as a liar and traitor. Indeed, the same news outlets that published those scurrilous George Soros ads now celebrate the Petraeus choice as "inspired." General "Betray Us" under a Republican has morphed into General "Save Us" under a Democrat. So much for politics stopping at the water's edge.

Seriously. What the Supreme Court does not need is another neo-marxist New Yorker like Kagan. Her mind set is exactly what we do not need. It is the anti-thesis to Constitutionality.

They should slam her on the fact she wouldn't allow military recruiters on Harvard campus because of don't ask don't tell policy all the while Harvard was receiving tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi's who put gay people to death.

I think that article is right BN. McChrystal took one for the country to expose the terrorist-in-Chief for what he is an imbecile.

Liberty...2010.

Well, the senators loved Kagan's chinese restaraunt gag. All I could think of, was imagine if a black nominee had said something equivalent, like "where was I? Like all blacks, I must have been at popeye's eating fried chicken." Don't get me wrong, racial stereotypes are funny... and I'm glad these fucktards are relaxing enough to realize that. But it seems to me that it's the kind of thing they usually go on the warpath over.

Daly is a friggin' moron

I hate this guy.

Here is another retarded comment from Terrorist House Speaker Pelosi.

Why oh why can't a baby grand piano drop on her head at the end of such a outrageously nitwited comment like she is making in that c-span clip. Of course it adds to the economy because 10% of the public are out of work but that is a first to suggest unemployment benefits create jobs. Please somebody kick this lady in the head.

And President Hussein was making similarly stupid comments about his failed stimulus debt somehow saving the economy by suggesting but look it could have been worse unemployment could have been 12% or 14% without it. Uh dip shit you promised unemployment would not rise above 8% when you slammed this debt burden through congress in March 2009.

And gee isn't there like a dozen states that actually have unemployment rates that are 12% and 14%. Our President is a moron of the highest caliber. Keep reading the teleprompter you jack ass.

Liberty...2010.

Daly is also the highest order moron. I guarantee if we searched his person he is carrying a concealed weapon.

Ditto.

OH sweet mercy, Cuntlosi makes me want to poke my own eyes out after I see her. She couldn't be more out of touch. Somebody should grab her by her friggin' Wilma Flintstone necklace and haul her ass out into a dumpster.

Unemployment benefits create nothing but dependency on Government. We have to stop rewarding failure and laziness, and start rewarding success and industry. I don't mind helping out people in financial crisis, but as a self-employed person, who is ineligible for unemployment benefits, forgive me if I can't get worked up about friggin' unemployment benefits, which are not fair to begin with. When the economy collapsed last year, where were you then, Cuntlosi? There was no government around to help ME. The stupid stimulus didn't help ME.

Screw all y'all you pack of vipers, you smug ass politicians. Can't wait to vote your asses out, out, out.

Double ditto.

You'll like this. Bill Whittle's generic commencement address.

I don't think many graduates would understand any thing that guy just said.

It was the right length for a commencement speak though.

Something tells me you could be right, Rico. A shame. A real shame, but a large educational opportunity.

That's what you call the voice of reason. The problem is, it assumes that young people operate on a foundation of reason, rather than emotion.

One of the hardest lessons that this generation has to learn, is that their needs and self esteem don't amount to squat in the real world. And the more that they've been conned into thinking that government or parents or OTHERS can supply and endless wellspring of self esteem and security, the more of a rude awakening they're gonna get.

You'll notice how Bill Whittle couched the entire rhetoric of that piece in calming, supportive tones. I'm sure that was intentional. Because without that borderline insulting suck up tone, this spoiled generation can't hear anything. They have to be told how smart and creative and powerful they are, before even the barest SUGGESTION that they're spoiled rotten.

Personally, I think we're beyond having to suck up to yutes. I'd rather they face the hard reality with the rude awakening. At this point in our culture, I think it's appropriate. There's really no time left to mollycoddle. Now it's kinda pick up a musket and defend freedom, or bow and scrape to your socialist overlords.

Cowards will fold, non-cowards will rise and recognize that as usual, freedom ain't free.