If I were a liberal, I would have spent the last week in shock that a Democratic audience in Flint, Mich., cheered Vice President Joe Biden’s description of a policeman being killed. (And if I were a liberal desperately striving to keep my job on MSNBC, I’d say the Democrats looked “hot and horny” for dead cops — as Chris Matthews said of a Republican audience that cheered for the death penalty.)

Biden’s audience whooped and applauded last week in Flint when he said that without Obama’s jobs bill, police will be “outgunned and outmanned.” (Wild applause!)

I suppose liberals would claim they were applauding because they believe Obama’s jobs bill will prevent these murders. Which reminds me: Republicans believe the death penalty prevents murders!

Which belief bears more relationship to reality?

In a case I have previously mentioned, Kenneth McDuff was released from death row soon after the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 1972 and went on to murder more than a dozen people.

William Jordan and Anthony Prevatte were sentenced to death in 1974 for abducting a teacher, murdering him and stealing his car. They came under suspicion when they were caught throwing the murder weapon from the stolen vehicle in a high-speed car chase with the cops and because they were in possession of the dead man’s wallet, briefcase and watch.

The Georgia Supreme Court overturned their capital sentences in an opinion by Robert H. Hall, who was appointed by Gov. Jimmy Carter.

Hall said that the death sentences had to be set aside on the idiotic grounds that the jurors had overheard the prosecutor say that the judge and state supreme court would have the opportunity to review a death sentence, which might have caused them to take their sentencing role less seriously.

(If the facts had been the reverse, the court would have overturned the death sentences on the grounds that the jurors did not take their sentencing decision seriously, under the misapprehension that no judge or court would second-guess them.)

Prevatte was later released from “life in prison” and proceeded to murder his girlfriend. Jordan escaped and has never been found.

As president, Carter appointed Hall to a federal district court.

Darryl Kemp was sentenced to death in California in 1960 for the rape and murder of Marjorie Hipperson and also convicted for raping two other women. But he sat on death row long enough — 12 years — for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional. He was paroled five years later and, within four months, had raped and murdered Armida Wiltsey, a 40-year-old wife and mother.

Kemp wasn’t caught at the time, so he spent the next quarter-century raping (and probably murdering) a string of women. In 2002, his DNA was matched to blood found on the fingernails of Wiltsey’s dead body. Although Kemp was serving a “life sentence” for rape in a Texas prison, he was months away from being paroled when he was brought back to California for the murder of Wiltsey.

His attorney argued that he was too old for the death penalty. He lost that argument, and in 2009, Kemp was again given a capital sentence. He now sits on death row, perhaps long enough for the death penalty to be declared unconstitutional again, so he can be released to commit more rapes and murders.

Dozens and dozens of prisoners released from death row have gone on to murder again. No one knows exactly how many, but it’s a lot more than the number of innocent men who have been executed in America, which, at least since 1950, is zero.

What is liberals’ evidence that there will be more rapes and murders if Obama’s jobs bill doesn’t pass? Biden claims that, without it, there won’t be enough cops to interrupt a woman being raped in her own home — which would be an amazing bit of police work/psychic talent, if it had ever happened. (That’s why Americans like guns, liberals.)

Obama’s jobs bill tackles the problem of rape and murder by giving the states $30 billion … for public school teachers.

Only $5 billion is even allotted to the police, but all we keep hearing about are the rapes and murders that Democrats are suddenly against (as long as being “against” rape and murder means funding public school teachers and not imprisoning or executing rapists and murderers).

Finally, did Flint use any money from Obama’s last trillion-dollar stimulus bill to hire more police in order to prevent rape and murder? No, Flint spent its $2.2 million from the first stimulus bill on buying two electric buses.

Even if what Flint really needed was buses and not cops, for $2.2 million, the city could have bought seven brand-new diesel buses and had $100,000 left over for streetlights.

Rather than reducing the rate of rape and murder, blowing money on “green” buses is likely to increase crime, since people will be forced to spend a lot more time waiting at bus stops for those two buses.

It’s going to be a long wait: The “green” buses were never delivered because the company went out of business — despite a $1.6 million loan from the American taxpayer.

But if I were a liberal, I wouldn’t acknowledge these facts, or any facts. I would close my eyes, cover my ears, demand that MSNBC fire Pat Buchanan and the FCC pull the plug on Fox, and pretend to believe that taxpayer-funded “green” projects and an ever-increasing supply of public school teachers were the only things that separated us from Armageddon.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

Case # 1: Some huge, rediculously fat man (and he would have to be to file this suit, it’s not that I am poking at overweight folks), has filed suit against White Castle because their dining area tables and chairs are not large enough to fit him.  

Now, and listen up Michelle Obama, it is not the fault of White Castle that this guy eats too much White Castle. It is not the fault of White Castle that he has absolutely no control over himself. Some people are just stupid! A company should not be threatened with further regulation, nor should they be threatened with law suits because some individuals refuse to take care of themselves properly. I like a good 99 cent heart attack in a sack myself every now and again, but c’mon, I do not go out every day or even as often as once a week to get one, why? Because I have common sense and control over myself. People who do not, cannot just go willy nilly and sue a company. Politicians wives cannot go and call for further regulation of restaurants either, as this just eggs on the fat guy to think its ok to sue a company because of his gluttonous ways.

What the lawyer should say is; “sorry, I can’t take this case on the basis of: why don’t you just stop eating White Castle and all the other ass-expanding stuff you shovel down your esophagus. It seems to me that would solve this whole ugly mess. I cannot help you sue an innocent company who did not tie you down and feed you and feed you and feed you until your beach ball shape popped right out of the booth”.

Case # 2: A woman has announced that she is filing suit against a chewing gum manufacturer because she has dentures and the gum became stuck and entangled in her dentures. Shouldn’t it be enough to just admit you are stupid enough to chew gum with dentures when it is reccomended by the dentist who did the work and by the chewing gum company that you do not do so? At any rate, according to the report I heard on the local country music station during a news break, she is filing suit not because of ruined dentures, but because of the depression suffered for 10 minutes. Yes, thats right, she is suing because of a 10 minute depression she fell into as a result of the horror of getting chewing gum all over her dentures. I ask again, where the freak are we living? What more absurd things can possibly come about? I am afraid to find out.

But what our current leader said in that O’Reilly interview is just absolutely true, the presidents job is very hard, and you know as president that no matter what you do or say, there will ALWAYS be somebody that is pissed off at you. He also told O’Reilly that just as Bush said in a previous interview, he does not get annoyed or insulted when the polls show that so many people are against him. He said that to even get into the White House, you have to have already developed a pretty thick skin. Yes sir. Well said.

By Joseph Bottum

Perhaps the situation in Egypt will resolve itself peacefully. Or perhaps we’ll see a long stretch of public unrest before the nation finally stumbles its way into a new form of stable government. But there’s one easy prediction to make: Whatever happens, Egypt’s Coptic Christians are going to be hurt, unless the United States makes a major diplomatic effort to help them.

About 10% of the Egyptian population (and declining, down more than half over the past century ), these people have suffered discrimination under 30 years of rule by the now-embattled president, Hosni Mubarak. And they’ve seen that discrimination ratcheted up into open persecution during the current unrest, which began with a car bomb in Alexandria killing 21 at a Coptic church on Jan. 1 and continued through the massacre of 11 Christians in the village of Sharona on Jan. 30.

So why should they expect improvement from a new government? Particularly one in which the radical Muslim Brotherhood is certain to play a major role? The Copts are under the screw, and somehow, every time modern Egyptian history makes a turn, it ends up biting down harder on the nation’s religious minorities.Of course, Egypt’s Christians are hardly alone in their suffering. Here’s a headline from 2010: “Catholic Bishop Stabbed to Death in Turkey.” And here’s another: “Islamist hard-liners in Indonesia target Christians.” And another: “Iraqi Christians mourn after church siege kills 58.” The Christmas season saw 48 killed in Muslim attacks in Nigeria.On Christmas Day, Iran opened its campaign against conversions by arresting dozens of evangelicals. Bombs left on the doorsteps of Christian homes in Iraq killed two and injured 14 on Dec. 30On and on the list goes. The single most dangerous thing in the world to be, right now, is a Christian in a Muslim country. It wasn’t always so. Relations among religious groups were never easy, but in the long years after the spread of Islam in the eighth century, large pockets of Christians — Copts and Maronite Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Syriac — managed to survive. 

Intolerance festers

The 20th century was less kind. The genocide of a million Armenian Christians by the Turks from 1895 through 1918 signaled the beginning of an era in which Muslim-majority nations would prove increasingly incapable of tolerating non-Muslim minorities.The 21st century looks much the same. For a decade now, Western nations have done little to help. Up to 1.4 million of Iraq’s Christians have fled since the war began in 2003, and without some kind of aid, there will be no native Christian population — none, not a single practicing Christian community — left in the Islamic countries of the Middle East by 2050.Not that the news is all bad. The voting in Sudan last month overwhelmingly favored secession by the oppressed populations in the oil-rich south. Assuming all goes as planned, the Christian-majority nation of Southern Sudan will be created this July.More African than Arab, Southern Sudan might not provide much assistance to minorities in the Middle East. But its existence teaches the lesson that commitment from the United States actually works. In the 1980s and 1990s, a broad political coalition forced the Bush and Clinton administrations to treat Sudan as a rogue state for its oppression of minorities. The 2011 independence of Southern Sudan is a fruit of that effort — proof that, though it might take decades, international pressure can succeed.Unfortunately, in the years since, America foreign policy has been little concerned with religious persecution. George W. Bush, for example, refused to insist on a non-Islamic constitution for Iraq. And Barack Obama has systematically watered down U.S. diplomacy: Where we once demanded “freedom of religion,” a public liberty, we now speak only of “freedom of worship,” a lesser and private right.

A willful blindness

This American abdication has produced only more oppression — and it’s accelerating at a horrifying rate. Nearly every day since Christmas, Christians have been murderously attacked for the simple fact of being Christians.Our willful blindness is shameful, and our inactivity is wrong. The United States must preface every diplomatic exchange with an Islamic country by demanding religious liberty and a halt to persecution. And we need to do it now — while there are still a few Christians left to defend in their ancient homelands.

Joseph Bottum is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.

The EPA has discovered that milk contains, a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil. Those geniuses, by-products of animals contain animal fat, who woulda thunk it?

Now, since oil spills can be hazardous, there must be a need for more regulation right?  What dairy farmers, or producers of cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream, etc. will need to do is as follows: they must prepare and install an emergency plan in the event of a milk catastrophe. A milk catastrophe? Really!? Farmers must also train first responders in cleanup procedure as well as build containment facilities such as dikes or berms. This no doubt has to be at the expense of their own dime. Once again we see a case of, “save the earth at the expense of the humans”. These plans must be in place by November. That’s NOVEMBER as in only 9 months away. So, busy dairy farmers have to somehow fit into their schedule the time to train milk sucking Haz-Mat guys to suck up “toxic” milk, they have to find the time to build containment facilities, all by November!

Does anybody else wonder why the milk is toxic and needs special handling, but meanwhile the cow shit gets to sit out in the field without any special handling at all? We use cow shit to help grow our crops, but milk on the ground is a disaster. Just like anything else the government touches, it is corrupt and makes no iota of sense whatsoever.

Given the overwhelming dangerous nature of these spilled milk incidents the EPA originally proposed additional regulations covering, the design specifications of  milk containers and associated piping and conduits. Lets all start crying now as government steals yet more money. This time from these dairy producers in the form of regulations and non compliance fines and such. Yes that’s right, we are crying over spilled milk.

Fortunately for us who have to pay for commodities, and for the farmers, the EPA backed off here. Unfortunately for farmers and the rest of us, the EPA only backed off because they discovered those items were already regulated by the FDA, the USDA and the states.

So what about that promise the president made to do away with regulations that have an unreasonable burden on business? Oh don’t worry about that, you must have misunderstood.

HAVING been taught by nuns in grade school and later going through military boot camp, I have always disliked uniformed authorities shouting at me. So I was unhappy last week when some security screeners at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago started yelling.

“Opt out! We got an opt out!” one bellowed about me in a tone that people in my desert neighborhood in Tucson usually reserve for declaring, “Rattlesnake!”

Other screeners took up the “Opt out!” shout. I was marched from the metal detector lane to one of those nearby whole-body imagers, ordered to take everything out of my pockets, remove my belt and hold my possessions up high. Then I was required to stand still while I received a rough pat-down by a man whose résumé, I suspected, included experience at a state prison.

“Hold your pants up!” he ordered me.

What did I do to deserve this? Well, as I approached the checkpoints, I had two choices. One was a familiar lane with the metal detector, so I put my bag on that. To my right was a separate lane dominated with what the Transportation Security Administration initially called “whole-body imagers” but has now labeled “advanced imaging technology” units. Critics, of course, call them strip-search machines.

I don’t like these things, and not just because of privacy concerns or because of what some critics have asserted are radiation safety issues with some of the machines that use X-ray technology.

No, I don’t like the fact that I have to remove every item from every pocket, including my wallet and things as trivial as a Kleenex. You then strike a pose inside with your hands submissively held above your head, like some desperado cornered by the sheriff in a Western movie, while the see-through-clothes machine makes an image of your body.

The T.S.A.’s position is that anyone can “opt out” of a body scan for reasons of privacy or whatever, but will then be subjected to a thorough physical pat-down and careful search of belongings.

In my case, I had been routinely using a normal metal detector checkpoint, when I was ordered to switch lanes and instead go to one of the new machines. I said I would prefer not to, given that my carry-on bag, laptop and shoes were already trundling along the regular machine’s conveyor belt, out of sight. That’s when the shouting started.

As of Monday afternoon, the agency had not responded to several requests for comment on this. Last week, the agency did tell me that there were 317 of the advanced imaging technology machines now in use at 65 airports around the country.

About 500 should be online by the end of the year, the agency said, and another 500 are expected to be installed next year. Ultimately, the agency plans to have the new machines replace metal detectors at all of the roughly 2,000 airport checkpoints.

Meanwhile, both passengers and security screeners are making accommodations, and I acknowledge, change is a challenge. But hey, security folks, could we please start communicating better about the procedures, preferably without shouting or insulting our intelligence?

Bruce Delahorne, a marketing executive who flies frequently, said he was also recently going through a standard metal detector at O’Hare — no body imager in sight — when the old rules abruptly changed.

Mr. Delahorne said: “They had one of the T.S.A. staff announcing loudly: ‘Take everything out of your pockets. If you have a wallet, take it out. A handkerchief, out.’ I asked the guy, ‘Can you explain the reason for the new process?’ He said there was nothing new. ‘We have always done this.’ ”

Well, no they haven’t, as you and I and Mr. Delahorne all know. Mr. Delahorne said he thought, “O.K., I get it. This guy is reading from the card, not talking to me.”

So, Mr. Delahorne said, “I did what they told me to. But on the other side of the metal detector, I said to another screener, ‘Could you explain to me why the procedure is now different at this airport, like having to remove a wallet that never set off the metal detector?’ And he said, ‘No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport.’ ”

Mr. Delahorne said he was perfectly willing to comply with all procedures to ensure good security. He just wondered whether some of them were being made up on the spot. “For me,” he said, “the issue is, who’s in charge here and what are the rules?”

E-mail: jsharkey@nytimes.com

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How much more do we have to put up with here? How much abuse do we need to take before we fight back and say enough is enough. There really is not anything in this abuse of power, abuse of citizen, violation of somebody’s ultimate privacy that will stop terrorism. This is absurd. Plus the blatant lies from the TSA guy about how they have ALWAYS done it that way, REALLY!? Is that really how you want to play it, by insulting our intelligence? People that fly daily and often are familiar with the procedures enough to know that something has been switched up to the level of unpleasant. The last flight the person took was probably a few days before and the unpleasantness did NOT occur. We do not need these rental cops telling us how ignorant we are.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/11/sooooo-busted-communists-caught.html

November 1, 2010

Communists have a well deserved reputation for altering history or “sanitizing the past to suit their purpose. But that’s all in the past, they are open and honest now…. they would never use deception to advance their agenda, would they……?

President Obama

has a long history with several radical groups, including the Communist Party USA. The communists naturally want to protect their “friend” from negative fallout should such associations become publicly known. It seems they are even willing to censor or alter their own publications to hide evidence of their past support for the President. Thankfully “wayback” provides proof positive of the communist’s deliberate dishonestyBelow is a screen shot of the

original article, taken as it appeared on the Communist Party USA website as of December 30, 2007. Note the reference to Communist Party support for Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate primaries.

Below is a screen shot of the

edited article (current version):

Note that the sentence,

“Our Party actively supported Obama during the primary election.”  has been scrubbed from the above article.

Rub the communists face in their clumsy attempt at deception. Email this post to every patriot you know. Also send it to any honest Democrats in your circle of friends or colleagues and ask them what they think of this blatant attempt to hide the Communist Party’s ties to the President.

This Article courtesy of NewZeal Blog. Thank You NewZeal.

No one has captured the essance recently of how bad this “Dick” has been for CT like my good friend Arragon Perrone.  A regular contributor to UCONN’s The Daily Campus, Arragon Perrone is not afraid to say it like it is here, truly a red voice in a blue state. I met Arragon while we were both working on the Martha Dean For Attorney General Campaign.  People are reading and hearing.

Arragon’s article got the attention of local conservative radio personality Jim Vicevich who basically praised the article and talked about it for a huge chunk of his 3 hour morning show today, after reading it out loud to his listener audience. The word on Facebook is that so many people went on the Daily Campus website to check out this article, that the site went down for a bit.

Please read the article below in its entirety

Blumenthal’s popularity based on misconceptions

By Arragon Perrone

Weekly Columnist

Democrat Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s state attorney general for the past 20 years, is currently running for U.S. Senate, and according to recent polls, will probably win. For much of his long political life, Blumenthal has depicted himself as the state’s top consumer advocate, fiercely fighting those businesses who seek to rip off customers, destroy the environment and take advantage of taxpayer money. For years, this story has been fed to the media without question. But in truth, his many attempts to punish bad business practices have effectively destroyed businesses before they had the chance to defend themselves. Whether inadvertent or deliberately vengeful, Blumenthal’s inappropriate actions reveal an attitude that would not help our state bridge the partisan divide in the U.S. Senate.

 During his time as attorney general, Blumenthal completed 380,963 cases and released 2,427 press releases. Meanwhile, his office budget increased from $13.4 million to $29.4 million, as reported by TheDay.com. Blumenthal’s biggest self-proclaimed victory was in 1998, when he joined many other state attorney generals in the fight against “Big Tobacco.” Blumenthal also sued Smith & Wesson, demanding that gun manufacturers be held responsible for crimes committed by individual gun owners. He even sued Microsoft for anti-trust violations over the marketing of Windows 98.

Blumenthal received widespread publicity for his lawsuits targeting “Big Business,” but he has targeted small businesses as well, showing little discretion before suing them. He sued Computers Plus Center of Waterbury for $1.75 million and publicly accused its owner, Gina Malapanis, of fraud. Malapanis was later arrested in her own home. In 2008, a Waterbury jury dismissed the charges and awarded Malapanis $18 million, not as a reward for the crimes that she allegedly committed, but for the blatantly inappropriate and vicious way in which the case was handled.

In the limited space of this article, it is impossible for me to go over all the legal paperwork regarding the cases of Malapanis and others. I am not concerned with Blumenthal’s prosecution of businesses that deserved to be punished, but rather his practice of disproportionate retaliation and his “guilty before innocent” attitude toward business lawsuits.

During this campaign season, Blumenthal claims to support small businesses that do not break the law. But over the course of his career, he has shown little discretion before suing them. There are many examples of this rash behavior. For instance, he targeted Stamford eye doctor Richard Weber for Medicaid fraud even though Blumenthal had not reviewed a single document related to the case. In the end, the state got nothing and Dr. Weber was paid $725,000. Brookfield Quarry, which Blumenthal sued in an eminent-domain case, received $28 million as a result of “unprofessional” behavior by the state, according to Superior Court Judge Barbara Sheedy.

Then there is the case of New England Pellet LLC. In the winter of 2008, Blumenthal sued the company, which was having trouble supplying its customers with wood pellets, even though the company had already begun to refund its customers. On television, Blumenthal accused the company of engaging in “consumer harm” and demanded “civic penalties and restitution.” As a result, the company collapsed. One of the co-owners attempted suicide. Only later did the lead investigator admit that he had no evidence to support the major accusations levied against New England Pellet. The Middletown Press’s Donald Pesci quotes NEP lawyer Jim Oliver as saying this about the case: “if [Blumenthal] sues you for $70,000, and wants $1 million in penalties, life as you know it is over. Your bank accounts are seized. Liens are placed on property and assets. Even if you win, the state will appeal and you will wait another year. You are out of business. You are dead.”

In these crucial days before the election, Blumenthal wants voters to see him as the state’s white knight, the ultimate father-figure who protects the helpless population from evil business. In the past, maintaining this heroic image required a villain – AT&T, the Atlantic Coast Conference, Atlantic Wire, “Big Tobacco,” Broadwater, Brookfield Quarry, Computers Plus Center, Countrywide Financial, Microsoft, the Phoenix Products Company of Plymouth, United Technologies Corporation, Smith and Wesson and the Thames Shipyard & Repair Company, among others.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to provide an exhaustive analysis of each and every case in a single article. Some of the businesses that Blumenthal sued probably did engage in an illegal or unethical practice at one point in their many years of operation. For those actions, they have paid. But what is disturbing is Blumenthal’s practice of publicly condemning businesses before the facts have even been presented in court. When Blumenthal finds a target, he passes judgment and executes that target in a barrage of fees, lawsuits and threats. In his eyes, the businesses – and the individuals who run them – are guilty until proven innocent. Their day in court is a mere formality.

This is a troubling attitude to have towardsa business or to anyone at all, and Blumenthal shows no sign of changing his attitude. A couple weeks ago, I attended a rally for Blumenthal in the Student Union. After he gave his speech, Blumenthal went around shaking hands with college students. A friend of mine approached him and asked him about the mischaracterization of his Vietnam War record, which The New York Times covered in May. Immediately, Blumenthal became rude, refused to answer and accused my friend of being a stooge for Linda McMahon – which she is not.

If this is the way Blumenthal treats someone whom he considers a threat, whether it is a business or politically-interested college student, the people of Connecticut should be very concerned about the man they are about to elect to the U.S. Senate.