Comments

  1. Randall Woodman says

    The Weiner saga continues.  Now there is an action figure of Anthony Weiner.  And yes, there is an adults only version.  This story almost writes itself.  Now he’s off to rehap and the experts are saying this could take years.  Democrats and Republicans alike are wanting him to resign.  But if this is considered “a disability” does it fall under the American with Disabilities act? If it does, can he be forced out of his job?  I agree with Rush.  Let him stay so he can be the poster child for everything wrong with liberals.

  2. Charles Martel says

    Somebody, I think on Instapundit, made the comment about Weiner that while homosexual proclivities are inborn and can never be tampered with via therapy, apparently Weiner’s heterosexual randiness can be treated.

    Go figure.

  3. SADIE says

     
    my morning email from bob. damn. so much to say, but surgery to repair the ulnar nerve in my left elbow has me with one hand tied up – actually, heavily bandaged and in a sling, which explains the lower case style. what’s bob’s excuse?
     
     
     
    Dear Sadie
     
    I’m writing to you from Manchester, New Hampshire, where last night I witnessed a spectacle that every single Obama supporter needs to hear about.

    The major GOP presidential candidates debated for the first time and made one thing very clear: They have no agenda but to take down President Obama.

    They even nodded along when one called the Obama administration a “destructive force,” and they said nothing when another said the President has “embraced our enemies.”

    Last night was a wake-up call to anyone who thinks they can sit tight while the Republicans battle each other for the nomination: The campaign to defeat Barack Obama and roll back his entire record is well underway. And that’s the one thing on which all of their potential candidates agree.

    It was seven against one. Since the President won’t be speaking for himself at one of these debates until next year, our best response is to show the Republicans that when they attack Barack Obama, it only makes us fight back harder.

    Fundamentally, last night’s debate was about which of their candidates would turn back the clock the farthest.

    They came out for re-fighting the battles they lost on Wall Street reform and the health care law. They backed reinstating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    They even talked about abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency — and phasing out Social Security and Medicare.

    They actually spent time debating whether they think Sarah Palin would have made a better vice president than Joe Biden (spoiler alert: They still think so!).

    But the words “education” and “middle class” were never uttered even once.

    If you were watching at home, you might have thought it was a re-run from four or eight years ago.

    Most of these people are full-time candidates with nothing to lose and nothing to do but keep pushing to take us back to the failed policies of the past. Help fight back with a donation today:

    Thanks,

    Robert Gibbs
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Dear Sadie
    I’m writing to you from Manchester, New Hampshire, where last night I witnessed a spectacle that every single Obama supporter needs to hear about.

    The major GOP presidential candidates debated for the first time and made one thing very clear: They have no agenda but to take down President Obama.

    They even nodded along when one called the Obama administration a “destructive force,” and they said nothing when another said the President has “embraced our enemies.”

    Last night was a wake-up call to anyone who thinks they can sit tight while the Republicans battle each other for the nomination: The campaign to defeat Barack Obama and roll back his entire record is well underway. And that’s the one thing on which all of their potential candidates agree.

    It was seven against one. Since the President won’t be speaking for himself at one of these debates until next year, our best response is to show the Republicans that when they attack Barack Obama, it only makes us fight back harder.

    Fundamentally, last night’s debate was about which of their candidates would turn back the clock the farthest.

    They came out for re-fighting the battles they lost on Wall Street reform and the health care law. They backed reinstating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    They even talked about abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency — and phasing out Social Security and Medicare.

    They actually spent time debating whether they think Sarah Palin would have made a better vice president than Joe Biden (spoiler alert: They still think so!).

    But the words “education” and “middle class” were never uttered even once.

    If you were watching at home, you might have thought it was a re-run from four or eight years ago.

    Most of these people are full-time candidates with nothing to lose and nothing to do but keep pushing to take us back to the failed policies of the past. Help fight back with a donation today:

    Thanks,

    Robert Gibbs

  4. Charles Martel says

    Remind me, who is Robert Gibbs?

    Also, this just in: The Wisconsin Supreme Court had overturned Demo hack Judge Sumi’s ruling that invalidated the state’s recently passed collective bargaining legislation. Note this quote from Legal Insurrection:

    (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/06/wisconsin-supreme-court-overturns-judge.html)

    “Some key language from the ruling, which overturned Judge Sumi’s rulings both procedurally (for interfering in the legislative process) and substantively (there was no violation of the Open Meetings Law)”

    Wow! Is the tide turning? A supreme court bringing a corrupt judge to heel for legislating from the bench?

  5. bizcor says

    Eureka! The link thing seems to have worked. Thank you for allowing me to experiment. That said what are your thoughts about Sarah? She epitomizes my conservative thinking. What do you think her role should be? President? Senator? Cabinet? Movie Star? Dog Catcher?

  6. 11B40 says

    Greetings:I was reading some of Michael Oren’s “Six Days of War” today when I came across (p.39) some of his prose with which I have, as is my wont, taken certain liberties. To begin:1)  “He knows how to start things fine…but he doesn’t know how to finish.”2)  “The irrational element was always present in his decision-making; what once had passed for pluck now predominated.”3)  “His rule of government was that of a man who was not secure unless he acts through a secret apparatus.”4)  “The law under the regime went on holiday.”5)  “What remained was his pride which, in inverse process to his fortunes, expanded monumentally.”6)  “It has to do again with a loss of face, with a sort of Messianic complex.”7)  “He doesn’t like to be proved wrong and can never admit to these wrongs.”Although the author was referring to Egypt’s Nasser in 1967, I very much thought I had fallen into a reading time warp.

  7. Mike Devx says

    Charles Martel @ 6 on the Wisconsin legal battles quotes:
    “Some key language from the ruling, which overturned Judge Sumi’s rulings both procedurally (for interfering in the legislative process) and substantively (there was no violation of the Open Meetings Law)”

    This is fascinating stuff to me.

    It’s clear the Secretary Of State (Democrat) and activist judge Sumi (aka Democrat hack) worked hand in glove on this.

    The Secretary of State chose the publication date to be the latest possible under the law (10 days) to allow time for the court appeal to Judge Sumi to occur.  Sumi promptly declared the law procedurally void.  All knew this would go to the Supreme Court, which they rightly judged would rule against Sumi.

    Therefore, the Democrats then attempted to recall one of the judges most likely to rule against Sumi.  This would allow a 4-3 decision against Sumi to become a 4-3 decision in favor of Sumi.  Once that recall failed, their fate was close to sealed.  And today, it was sealed.

    As far as I can tell from reading all the opinions – a wide variety of concurrences and partial dissents – it looks like nearly all the judges agreed that the Secretary of State/Sumi strategy was a violation of judicial procedure that they never want to see happen again.  A bill must become law, and then an injured party must take it to court.  Then the courts may rule.  Sumi’s grotesque violation of this was a test “floater” attempt to determine if judges can intrude into the legislative process prior to a bill becoming law, and she has been roundly, completely rebuked, in a manner greater than the 4-3 decision itself.  That’s what I appeared to read; hope I’m not wrong.

    It doesn’t appear to be over.  The Secretary Of State shall now have to publish the bill, and it will at that point become law.  A court challenge will occur again.  But is the violation of the Open Meetings Law decided already, in favor of the legislature, making such a challenge moot?  I couldn’t tell for sure…

  8. Mike Devx says

    The Wisconsin battle reminds me of the ObamaCare legal battle, in the subtlety of the challenge and its effects.

    ObamaCare’s individual mandate requires that citizens pay money, out of their own pocket, to purchase health care – or pay a penalty.  By my reading of the Constitution, this cannot be called a “tax”.  And the Obama Administration argued during the battle for passage that it was not a tax.  Now, in the courts, they are claiming it is a “tax”.

    Dangerous argument!  Any future Congress will be able to mandate that citizens purchase *anything* they wish to see purchased.  Liberals that are hot to see ObamaCare survive ought to ponder this carefully, for what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Would you really want to see a very conservative Congress proceed in such a way?

    The problem for Democrats – and for ObamaCare – is that the individual mandate lacks a “severability clause”, in which it alone could be thrown out for being unconstitutional for not being a valid tax.  The whole bill becomes unconstitutional because – in this rare case – Congress decided to go all in, and not include the severability clause.

    Oops.

  9. Randall Woodman says

    Imagine a very conservative congress and administration ordering all persons to purchase a gun and gun training lessons and/or serve in a local militia.  I’m sure the left would go nuts.  Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

  10. says

    Randall Woodman: Imagine a very conservative congress and administration ordering all persons to purchase a gun and gun training lessons and/or serve in a local militia.  I’m sure the left would go nuts.  Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

    The Second Militia Act of 1792: “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia … That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.”

  11. Charles Martel says

    SADIE, you knew that they would have to find a way to denigrate Palin no matter what. The problem with the geniuses in the media is that they’re too stupid to see their own arrogance. If Palin writes at an eighth-grade level, it means that virtually everybody in America who can read will understand what she’s saying. Don’t the fools who run things realize how dangerous it is when the ideas of a plainspoken woman are not only understandable but also make sense? 

  12. BrianE says

    Sadie, you’ve seen the problem reporters have fought for ages. Headlines that don’t actually reflect the story.

    Here’s what the article says:

    It turns out Palin’s writing skills are still better than most educated Americans. Global Language Monitor gave Palin’s emails a score of 8.2, which actually exceeds that of most chief executives.
    “She’s very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical,” said Paul Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. “She has much more of a disciplined mind than she’s given credit for.”

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/14/2011-06-14_sarah_palin_writes_at_an_eighthgrade_level_in_recently_released_emails_says_writ.html#ixzz1PMU0WTff

    Her writing level is barely exceeded by Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech, according to the article, which were rated at 9.1 and 8.8.

  13. says

    Charles Martel: I guess Zach{riel} has a hard time distinguishing between 1792 and 2011.

    Not at all. The Militia Acts of 1792 have been repealed. The key is that people were mandated to make particular purchases. 

  14. BrianE says

    The key is that people were mandated to make particular purchases.- Zachriel

    Actually, only certain people were required to own rifles.

    From my previous post, you’re taught in Journalism school to write at an 8th grade level.  

  15. Mike Devx says

    Obama’s so-called best speech was graded at 7.2, I believe.

    Charles M said: I guess Zach has a hard time distinguishing between 1792 and 2011.

    Indeed.  The 1792 laws, enacted in 1795, were required because there was no standing army.  Well, there may have been 800 soldiers out and about, not actually zero. But the militias thus organized were the army.  Only after the War of 1812 was over did a real standing army begin to be formed.  There was an officers’ school! – West Point was organized in 1802.  But not much else was going on army-wise.  The militias were it.

    Randall said this, leading to the Zach quote: Imagine a very conservative congress and administration ordering all persons to purchase a gun and gun training lessons and/or serve in a local militia.

    A telling point, and having absolutely nothing to do with the 1792 version of a standing army. But it would be phrased in the terminology of patriotism; or in answering some “threat to our national security”, or even “improvement of the character of America”, or some other critical response to some perceived national emergency. Much as ObamaCare was phrased and then shoved down our throats.

    I’m more fearful of the populist, or the demagogue, in a time of severe economic crisis – such as is already convulsing Greece into total chaos due to debt, the need to cut, and resistance to cuts – using this precedent of the Individual Mandate to force us all into economic buying decisions to “restore America’s greatness” by mandating that we “buy American”.  Not just urging.  Forcing.

  16. Charles Martel says

    I guess Zach has a hard time understanding that referring to a law from 219 years ago to answer Randall Woodman’s speculation is not an answer because it offers no explanation as to why it is an answer.

    Why was the law repealed? What would be the reaction of the left wing if such a similar law were proposed today? What would be plausible arguments for and against it? Etc., etc.

    See how that works, Zach? You engage in a thoughtful dialog. Who knows what levels of exhiliration you could achieve if you could move just an inch past believing that because you’re the best darned cutter and paster in Bookworm Room that you are somehow engaging the rest of here in a conversation. 

  17. SADIE says

    mike, it goes beyond the headline – it’s also the lead in the first paragraph. the article noted it previewed on aol/weird news was the initial ‘hit’. the ny daily trash can rot in hell. below is the email from sarah that should have made the msm bow their heads in shame.
     
     

    In April 2008, two weeks before Trig was born with Down’s Syndrome, Mrs Palin sent the email to her friends and family from her official government account. In the touching message, Mrs Palin writes from the voice of God, as ‘Trig’s creator, your heavenly father’.

    Please read it all and forward to those you think could benefit from reading it.
    To the Sisters, Brother, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, and Friends of Trig Paxson Van Palin (or whatever you end up naming him!):

    I am blessing you with this surprise baby because I only want the best for you. I’ve heard your prayers that this baby will be the happy and healthy, and I’ve answered them because I only want the best for you!
    I heard your heart when you hinted that another boy would fit best into the Palin family, to round it out and complete that starting five line-up. Though another girl would be so nice, you didn’t think you could ask for what you really wanted, but I knew so I gave you a boy.
    Then, I put the idea in your hearts that his name should be “Trig,” because it’s so fitting, with two Norse meanings: “True and “Brave Victory” …
    Then, finally, I let Trig’s mom and dad find out before he was born that this little boy will truly be a GIFT. They were told in early tests that Trig may provide more challenges, and more joy, than what they ever may have imagined or ever asked for. At first the news seemed unreal and sad and confusing. But I gave Trig’s mom and dad lots of time to think about it because they needed to understand that everything will be OK. …
    This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind {you} together and get everyone focused on what really matters. The baby will expand your world and let you see and feel things you haven’t experienced yet. He’ll show you what “true, brave victory” really means as those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells you is “normal” or “perfect.”…
    Trig will be his dad’s little buddy and he’ll wear Carhartts while he learns to tinker in the garage. He’ll love to be read to, he’ll want to play goalie, and he’ll steal mom’s heart just like Track, Bristol, Willow, and Piper did. And Trig will be the cuddly, innocent dependent little brother that his siblings have been waiting for… in fact Trig will – in some diagnostic ways – always be a mischievous, dependent little brother, because I created him a bit different than a lot of babies born into this world today.
    Every child is created special, with awesome purpose and amazing potential. Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on earth. Trig is no different, except he has an extra chromosome. Doctors call it “Down syndrome,” and Downs kids have challenges, but can bring you much delight and more love than you can ever imagine! …
    Trig’s mom and dad don’t want people to focus on the baby’s extra chomosome. They’re human, so they haven’t known how to explain this to people who are caring and are interested in this new little Alaskan. … Some will think Trig should not be allowed to be born because they fear a Downs child won’t be considered “perfect” in your world. …
    Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this.
    I know it will take time to grasp this and come to accept that I only want the best for you, and I only give my best. Remember though: “my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts… for as heavens are higher than earth, my ways are higher than yours!”
    I wrote that all down for you in the Good Book! Look it up! You claim that you believe me – now it’s time to live out that belief!
    Trig can’t wait to meet you. I’m giving you ONLY THE BEST!

    Love, Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father

  18. Mike Devx says

    That would be just one of many possible exploitations of the precedent being set by the Individual Mandate forced purchase.  The potential uses of a forced purchasing mandate are practically endless.

    It appears the severability clause issue will likely come down to a 5-4 decision, with the winning side based entirely on Anthony Kennedy.  No one discussing it really knows which way he’d be likely to go.  Pragmatism may lead him to say that, due to the unusual Reconciliation process instead of bicameral committee, a severability clause is *implicit*, and they will still only strike down the individual mandate portion of ObamaCare.

    Which will lead to health care chaos anyway.  Interesting times, they be a coming.

  19. Charles Martel says

    SADIE, I am sad to say that there are many people who will gag at what Palin wrote. The idea that a Down syndrome child could be anything other than a repudiation of our right to a placid, perfect, unfettered existence just isn’t going to sit well with our humanity-loving friends on the left.

  20. says

    BrianE: Actually, only certain people were required to own rifles.

    *Each and every* free able-bodied white male citizen between 18 and 45, excepting congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Basically, it was universal conscription *and* the requirement to purchase your own arms. You didn’t have to bring a rifle, you could use a musket instead. 
     
    Mike Devx: A telling point, and having absolutely nothing to do with the 1792 version of a standing army.

    But it does relate to your point about constitutionality. Apparently, a relatively weak national government had the constitutional power to mandate purchases in 1792. It’s possible it could still be ruled unconstitutonal, but there is precedent. The counterargument would be that national defense is an overriding concern. 
     

  21. says

    BrianE (quoting): “It turns out Palin’s writing skills are still better than most educated Americans. Global Language Monitor gave Palin’s emails a score of 8.2, which actually exceeds that of most chief executives. ‘She’s very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical,’ said Paul Payack, president of Global Language Monitor.”

    Using direct and easily understood language is of great importance when trying to communicate to staff. In any case, emails typically have a much more relaxed style.

  22. SADIE says

    ….many people who will gag at what Palin wrote
     
    i hope they have seizures, swallow their tongues and black out for long periods of time for starters.
     
     

  23. says

    Ymarsakar: Z once asked when had he ever added {riel} to his name when quoting someone else here.

    That’s not correct. You might want to find the original conversation and check again.

  24. says

    Apparently, a relatively weak national government had the constitutional power to mandate purchases in 1792.

    For the common defense. Zach is so anti-American and anti-Constitutional, he gives little care for what the actual US Constitution is empowered to do. The US Constitution has the power, by force of law and force majeure, to see to the common defense, which in the case of militias was to ensure their readiness, equipment conformity and maintenance, as well as the manpower requirements for able bodied men.

    Healthcare, wealth, prosperity, and life on someone else’s dole, was never guaranteed by the US Constitution nor the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. What Z is working off of is some socialist, Alinsky, European communist mode of “hold them to their rules until they destroy themselves”. The US Constitution has rules, but they aren’t written by the Zs of the world. Nor can the Zs hold us to rules that were never in the US Constitution, and hypocritically try to lecture us about the US Constitution at the same time.

    Basically, it was universal conscription *and* the requirement to purchase your own arms.

    Z’s habit of lying and distorting things hasn’t changed, I see.

  25. says

    In any case, emails typically have a much more relaxed style.

    Z has a hard bricked staff rammed up his spine while commenting on the internets. He is the last person I want to hear what “relaxed style” should be.

  26. says

    Ymarsakar: For the common defense.

    The phrase “common defence” is found in the Preamble to the Constitution,

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

    Notice that the phrase “common defence” is found right next to “general Welfare.” 
     
    Ymarsakar: Healthcare, wealth, prosperity, and life on someone else’s dole, was never guaranteed by the US Constitution nor the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. 

    The mandate of how to promote the general Welfare is left up to the legislative process. 
     
    Zachriel: Basically, it was universal conscription *and* the requirement to purchase your own arms.

    Ymarsakar: Z’s habit of lying and distorting things hasn’t changed, I see.

    How is that not universal conscription when nearly “each and every” able bodied citizen is forced to participate in the militia, including bring their own weapon and ammunition?

    —–

    Ymarsakar: Z once asked when had he ever added {riel} to his name when quoting someone else here.

    Zachriel
    : That’s not correct. You might want to find the original conversation and check again.

    Ymarsakar
    : Of course it is correct. Do your own homework. For once.
     
    So you make a claim, but can’t be bothered to support it. From the Bookmark the Hoax thread:

    Ymarsakar
    : When I shortened him to Z, he, while quoting me, would fill in the blank Z[rachriel].

    Zachriel
    : Did we? Where?

    Please note that your statements do not match. They are imprecise. We ignored it before as unimportant and of no consequence, but you have insisted (and it is an open thread).

  27. Mike Devx says

    Zachriel @ 29 : But it does relate to your point about constitutionality. Apparently, a relatively weak national government had the constitutional power to mandate purchases in 1792.

    Ah, I missed your point!  Doh.  I was too focused on the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” angle.  The legislation you’ve pointed out is food for thought, indeed.

    My initial guess is that it never faced Supreme Court review.  No one took it to court?

  28. Mike Devx says

    Considering that we are discussing a law passed in 1792, and judicial review (of Executive decisions and Congressional laws) wasn’t established until Marbury vs Madison in 1803, I’m not surprised that this particular law survived however long it did.  Which I bet wasn’t long.

    I’d have to see a past Supreme Court decision concerning such a “purchase-based” law before I could comment differently on my position.

  29. says

    Mike Devx: Considering that we are discussing a law passed in 1792, and judicial review (of Executive decisions and Congressional laws) wasn’t established until Marbury vs Madison in 1803, I’m not surprised that this particular law survived however long it did.  Which I bet wasn’t long.

    The Dick Act in 1903 repealed it. The constitutional link is weak, though, as common defence is given special deference, especially in times of national emergency. For instance, the draft could be considered slavery in other contexts.

  30. SADIE says

    The Dick Act in 1903 repealed it. The constitutional link is weak, though, as common defence is given special deference, especially in times of national emergency. For instance, the draft could be considered slavery in other contexts.
     
    typo or origin?
     
     
     

Leave a Reply