Waterboard Pelosi?

It is obvious to all but the most rabidly extreme leftard that Nancy Pelosi is shamelessly lying.

She wants a "truth commission" to get to the bottom of the waterboarding issue.

My experience is that we'll never learn the truth from any organization that has "truth" in it's name. So why not waterboard Pelosi?

If it is as effective as some claim it to be we'll finally learn what she knew and when she knew it. If she continues to prevaricate we'll know waterboarding is bogus... except for the entertainment value.

After all... we're due some payback, just watching her try to choke out more lies is torture.



But my guess is Nancy, her truth commission, and the questions of "What did she know, and when did she know it?" will disappear like farts in a strong breeze over the Memorial Day weekend... unless the media spots Sarah Palin in public first and can use her as a distraction again.

Playing the gay card

Wanda Sykes has been geting her butt chewed off in radio-land for her unfunny wish that Rush Limbaugh suffered from kidney failure. By now I'm sure you've heard she said it at the White House Correspondence Dinner and Obama was said to have laughed.

I like some of her stuff so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that in context in a room full of spite filled leftards it may have been humorous. However, the line being played comes across as unfunny and forced.

Well this morning I heard on the radio that Wanda Sykes is a mother, her wife had twins last month. This was news to me on two levels, one that she was a lesbian and the other that she was married. And neither matter to me.

However, the twins were born last month and the media didn't care because they were too busy inventing the Swine Flu Panic of 2009. So they decided to run with it this morning. The message should be clear, when it was news it wasn't newsworthy. Now that SHE is news it is, but it's not about the babies, it is about her being a married lesbian.

Since she threw launched the attack any criticism of her cannot be deflected by using the race card, especially as Obama was present and laughed, because if this becomes a matter of race then Rush Limbaugh is not just the evil conservative, but potentially could turn him into the victim of a racial onslaught. So the MSM is now making news of Syke's marriage to turn the attention on her being a lesbian so any further comments about her ignorant comments about Rush are an attack on the gay community, not just her.

The left uses race, creed and color as crutches to hide behind. The break people into little groups for the purpose of identity politics. Instead of seeing the individual they see skin color or hear an accent and it those qualities they use to define the individual.

And they claim it is the right that is full of ignorant "haters".

New Jersey: A study in duality

On Monday to great fanfare New Jersey's Governor Corzine signed a bill that passed both houses with overwhelming bi-partisan support. The bill, A3580, allows 17 year olds to donate blood and grants permission for minors 16 years old to donate blood with parental supervision.
Where the illogical part comes in is that in New Jersey a person still needs a parent's or guardian's authorization to donate blood, but the state allows girls as young as 13 to have abortions without any parental consent whatsoever. (Technically there is no legal lower limit but the AMA has recommended it's members not perform elective procedures on minors younger than 13 without parental consent.)

One of the greatest lies we are told is that abortion is a safe procedure. While it is not up there with organ transplants and heart surgery for mortality, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of deaths every year from abortions. Ironically only a fraction of the abortion related deaths are reported as such, most are reported as deaths from complications of pregnancy and contribute to the hyper-inflated maternal mortality rate.

Somehow the morons in New Jersey's legislature and our Governor decided to ignore reality, accept the "official" report of .6 deaths per 100,000 abortions and deemed it safe enough for a 13 year old to have without parental consent.

And just as deaths following the use of Mifepristone is reported as suspect to the drug by manufacturer (to keep the numbers artificially low) any child who dies from this procedure is not likely to be recorded as an abortion death but rather categorized as some other statistic.
Some day the truth will be allowed to be told. In the meantime we have to live with the fear that in New Jersey your child can die from an abortion you never knew she had. Except the chances are you'll never know about the abortion either, it will likely be listed as a pregnancy related complication.

She's not stupid, she's a liberal

From USA Today (don't blame me I'm traveling and the hotel gave me a free copy, it's the only reason I heard of this story).

Ginsburg: Court needs another woman
WASHINGTON — Three years after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the Supreme Court, the impact of having only one woman on the nation's highest bench has become particularly clear to that woman — Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Her status as the court's lone woman was especially poignant during a recent case involving a 13-year-old girl who had been strip-searched by Arizona school officials looking for drugs. During oral arguments, some other justices minimized the girl's lasting humiliation, but Ginsburg stood out in her concern for the teenager.
"They have never been a 13-year-old girl," she told USA TODAY later when asked about her colleagues' comments during the arguments. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."
As Justice David Souter prepares to retire at the end of the term this summer, the significance of Ginsburg's position as the nine-member court's only woman has become a point of broad discussion. President Obama is under pressure from groups such as the National Women's Law Center to nominate another woman.
In interviews with USA TODAY before Souter's retirement announcement Friday, Ginsburg said the court needs another woman. "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. I don't say (the split) should be 50-50," Ginsburg said. "It could be 60% men, 40% women, or the other way around. It shouldn't be that women are the exception." (continued)

I am not surprised Ginsburg doesn't get it... as a matter of fact from her it is rather expected.
Not only does she miss the point about why a woman is "needed" on the SCOTUS, she uses the most irrational argument it almost makes a case why women should not be on the Supreme Court.

The members of the Supreme Court of the United States are charged with determining the constitutionality of laws and judicial decisions. They are supposed to hear evidence and make decisions free of preconceptions and prejudice. In this capacity a woman's point of view is irrelevant, it is not about points of view; it is about the law.

And the argument she chose to use as the bellwether about why having another woman on the court, because men cannot empathize with a 13 year old girl, as he has not been one, is not only irrelevant, it perhaps is a great reason why women should not be on the SCOTUS. The justices should not sympathize or empathize with the petitioners but rather determine the merits of the case based on FACTS.

I know it is hard. I remember when I was 13. Lets just say it was not a good year. And I wasn't strip searched.

However, the fact that the petitioner was 13 is irrelevant to the case. That ANY student of ANY age or EITHER gender was strip searched for such as spurious reason as suspected for giving aspirin to a classmate should be the issue. The case could have been an indictment of brainless "zero tolerance" policies implemented because school administrators are lazy, instead, to Ginsburg, the case centered around the emotions of a 13 year old girl and lack of empathy from her bench mates.

It is bad enough that the SCOTUS frequently makes law. That this law could be based on empathising with a 13 year old girl's emotional state and not the constitution is frightening.

Enter the legal realists

CAUTION: I have no idea where this is going to end up, my mind is all over the place.

Legal realism is the belief that the law should not just be the written statutes but should take into consideration sociological, anthropological, and other social issues when considering decisions. While the legal realism movement largely petered out there is one main person carrying the torch for American Legal Realism. This man, Richard Posner, a Harvard Law graduate, former full time law professor and current lecturer at Chicago law School and current 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. (And so you don't have to look it up, the 7th Circuit is Chicago.)

Obama was also a lecturer at the Chicago Law School, Obama also graduated Harvard Law School, and as a person raised under Islam the idea of a legal system based on sociological and anthropological issues (a/k/a sharia) would be within the realm of reason, so the coincidence that surround these men is most likely no coincidence. It would also explain Obama's shunning of the other Chicago Law School professors and lecturers who he avoided. After all, a lecturer who is a legal realist teaching constitutional law is more than ironic, it is asinine. My guess is Obama felt it was better to lay low than get caught up in a philosophical dispute with people who didn't understand his take on the law. This could be backed up by the unprecedented dearth of writing he conducted as President of the Harvard Law Review.
What started me looking into this was the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement and Obama's press conference stating that everyone was willing to compromise except the hedge funds and how they were holding out for for "an unjustified taxpayer funded bailout." And the news programs and MSM played that repeatedly this week.

While on the surface it appeared as though Obama was playing his tired game of economic warfare it didn't take long to research the real reason for this bankruptcy settlement and the justification behind it. You see this pre-packaged bankruptcy plan was not initiated by Chrysler's lawyers but rather was set up and defined by the White House lawyers. And it doesn't take much to scratch the surface to reveal what these legal realists are aiming to do.
When it was decided that bankruptcy was needed, despite a now seemingly forgotten series of denials by the White House that "bankruptcy was not an option" and despite months of statements from financial and constitutional conservatives saying that bankruptcy was not just necessary it was inevitable or the government would be pouring unnecessary tax-payer funded bailouts into Chrysler to keep it afloat, the Obama team of legal realists came up with a solution.

But a group of lien holding owners had a problem. They represent not so much hedge funds but are mostly investors specializing in retirement investments, such as TIAA-CREF which specializes in teacher and public employee pensions. As secured lien holders they have the legal right to be the first investors paid out and are guaranteed their financial positions based upon law. But to show they are not operating in a vacuum, or from a position of greed, they were willing to be realists and cut the value of their position to 60%, or in other words they proposed reducing their lien based holdings, for which they could insist on 100% reimbursement before any other debts are paid, by 40%, in order to facilitate this bankruptcy and help the merger proceed. The thought behind this is their stake in the newly formed corporation could pay back the 40% which would help them meet their responsibilities ot their investors... everyday working people, who in some cases had no choice in where their retirement funds were invested.

But Obama and his legal team wanted the lien secured investors to cut their legally defensible position in the company to 29%... or rather discount it by 71% as essential to the success of the bankruptcy, and by association, the subsequent merger. But while literally forcing the people who are legally guaranteed 100% of their investment to settle for 29 cents on the dollar by using the MSM and the bully pulpit, the government was backing the auto worker's claim to more money than they would be entitled to as unsecured lien holders.

If you are still wondering where I am going with this...

The Obama team of legal realists are looking at destroying the legal principle of ownership. They intend to "legally" redefine the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to say that ownership of personal property is not an inalienable right. Ironically the left sold the Community Reinvestment Act as a way for all Americans to realize the American dream of "home ownership" while saying that ownership of personal property (the money we earn at work) is not a right.

The goal: a utopian statist paradise where rights are replaced with privileges and permissions. Because once the right of personal property and free speech have been redefined as privileges people will do what it takes to ingratiate themselves to the government because free speech and ownership of personal property two of man's defining characteristics.

Except if you can only have these things because the government allows it than you cannot be truly free... you are a subject to the government. whether the government puts you in shackles or you put them on yourself you are still in shackles.