Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Our President: the Leader of the Free World

Muammar Gaddafi, the dictatorial leader of Libya, the "mad dog of the Middle East," advocate of Islamic Socialism, who gave a hero's welcome to the man convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 tragedy, just told the United Nations that "We are glad to have a Son of Africa as president of the United States. We would be content to have President of Obama be president of American forever."

Meanwhile, President Obama apologized to the United Nations for his country, and naively delivered the United States over to the whims, demands, and control of the UN.

Oh yeah, and did we mention that Congress just voted NOT to require Senators to read the proposed healthcare legislation, NOT to publish a brief synopsis of the legislation for Americans to read, and NOT to publish the estimated costs of the proposed healthcare bill?

Wake up, America.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Blackstone/ADF's new headquarters

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona State Capitol Building For Sale
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

Our New Favorite Band

If you like a little bluegrass, some amazingly unique harmonies, and a lot of energy, you need to check out the Avett Brothers - live and the studio version. We're big fans:



Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Is There Something in the Water in South Carolina? Yeah -- it's called red clay.

Stephen Conn has posted what amounts to yet another one of those "historical" pieces about South Carolina; ironically, it's stereotyping of South Carolina is itself a stereotype of the self-righteous rhetoric that many historians publish under the guise of historical analysis when it comes to Southern history and culture (although I'm sure he's just giddy over how brilliantly original he thinks he is).

Mr. Conn is a history professor at Ohio State University, and his little essay was published by the History News Service, self-described as "an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts." Unfortunately, it's not the thought that counts when it comes to historical research, and Mr. Conn's piece does little to improve the public's understanding of current events, but is more to serve as a soapbox for his personal political preferences.

Consider some of his more humorous statements:
Joe Wilson's recent outburst is just the "latest in [South Carolina's] long, distinguished history of not-quite-ready-for-democracy political behavior."
We're not quite sure what one must do to become "ready for democracy". Perhaps Mr. Conn thinks that Joe Wilson's comments were a little too commonplace and have no place in the civilized halls of Congress. Then again, isn't democracy nothing more than government by the people--the common people? And isn't Congressman Wilson's comment an echo of the many outburts made by citizens around the country at the numerous town halls that have been held in recent weeks. Perhaps Mr. Conn thinks those passionate Americans are not quite ready for democracy either.
In his recounting of the infamous Brooks-Sumner Affair, he asserts that "This is why it's apparently so important that people be allowed to carry firearms: to prevent good Samaritans from intervening when your friend wants to beat someone up. Keitt was censured by Congress, which is probably one reason the NRA was founded."
We appreciate his sarcastic humor--clearly he's an NRA fan--and by no means condone Preston Brooks' actions. But Conn (or is it Con?) conveniently ignores any sort of discussion of what precipitated this incident, or the history of: The Duel (pronounced Doo Ell). While our modern minds may find dueling a bit barbaric (in fact, dueling was falling out of favor even by this point in history, and Brooks' would have broken South Carolina law and been stripped of political office had he participated in a duel with Sumner), dueling had long had a place in American culture, and Brooks was merely following the protocol of the Code of Dueling. The fact that the House of Representatives voted not to expel Brooks after this incident indicates that his actions were not that uncommon--in their historical context (remember the History New Services' stated purposes??).
"The reason Sumner deserved his beating, as far as the good folks from the Palmetto State were concerned, was that Sumner was an abolitionist and he went to Harvard."
No, the reason Sumner deserved his beating was because he had publicly ridiculed Brook's relative, Andrew Butler. But we suppose it's more fun to portray South Carolinians as ignorant Yankee-hating racists.
NB: Sumner's long diatribe against Butler took place in the Senate Chambers, lasting over 3 hours, during which he made fun of Butler's stroke-created physical impairments. Compare that with Wilson's two-word outburst, challenging the accuracy of Obama's statement, not a physical disability--you tell us which is "not quite ready for democracy."
South Carolinians so loved their slave system that they were the very first to secede from the Union.
Thousands of books, theses, dissertations by as many historical scholars and you've reduced the many nuances of the Civil War to this? This is sloppy at best, Professor Conn, and it's the kind of broad generalizations we expect to see in a 3rd grade essay.
The most beloved South Carolina politician of the more recent past was Strom Thurmond, segregationist, bigot, and all-around standard-bearer for South Carolina.
For all of his shortcomings (and he certainly had them), Senator Thurmond is perhaps one of the clearest individual examples of America's evolution as a nation--particularly with regard to race relations. Again, one would have hoped you could put Thurmond in his historical context, noting how his views on blacks, integration, etc. evolved along with the rest of the country. A Dixiecrat, yes, but also a Democrat, and then a Republican. Opposing the Civil Rights Act, yes, but wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who said that he never intended the social and political equality of blacks and whites--including making "negroes" voters? Maybe this is why Thurmond is such a standard-bearer: he progressed, rather than remaining stuck in his ways.
Re: Mark Sanford: "Even in South Carolina's illustrious political history, one is hard pressed to think of another politician who combines self-indulgence with sanctimoniousness in such generous portions."
We're sorry, was this a historical piece or a New York Times op-ed? Sanford's affair is a sad tale, and he should have handled things in the aftermath differently than he did. But we can appreciate his honesty (as public and ill-advised as it was). Even Prof. Conn recognized that it "took a particular kind of moral and political courage." Which cannot be said of his sorry excuse for a historical piece.

Perhaps the type of courage the Conn Man is looking for is best illustrated by a Congressman from HIS home state of Ohio, former Rep. James Traficant. We're sure we don't need to remind you, Mr. Conn, that Mr. Trficant (of Ohio) was just last week released from federal prison after serving a 7 year terms for racketeering, bribery, and other corrupt activities. Ah, the all-around standard bearer for Ohio. We're sure you also remember that the Congressman (from Ohio) WAS expelled from the House of Representatives (i.e. his conduct was actually considered reprehensible--in it's historical context). Mr. Traficant (D-OH) said this:
"I will take with me a file, chisel and a knife. I'll try to get some major explosives to fight my way out. Then when I get out, I'll grab a sword like Maximus Meridius and as a gladiator, I'll stab people in the crotch."
Now that's democracy!!

Mr. Conn, we have a degree in History--just like you. And Mr. Conn, we often voice our political ideologies and preference--just like you. The difference is, we don't parade our opinions about as historical scholarship under the auspices of a History News Network. And the only reason we even take the time to mention your recent article is because, as an historian, "legal scholarship" like this is an embarrassment and disgrace to our noble profession.

Maybe your dislike for the South is also a product of history--the history of your university's sorry excuse for a football team that can't win a game against decent competition, including the last few times it played the University of South Carolina, or Upper Georgia, or whatever. Or maybe you're just jealous of our way of life. You wouldn't be the first: there must be a mass exodus of Ohioans coming to South Carolina to warrant something like this.

On second thought, maybe we shouldn't be too harsh on the OSU football team, or Mr. Conn--it could just be something in their water.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Fidel Castro, one of the brightest leaders we know

People, you cannot make this stuff up:


Is this woman from the same America that we are?

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

A Glimpse Into Yesteryear, Second Installment

If dreams are like movies, then memories are films about ghosts. And if our college experience had a soundtrack for every scene in that multi-act production, then this would surely make the album:



If you think we're kidding, think again.

Indentured Grandchildren

The promise of our Founders, which we the People of the United States have made as well, is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Yet as G. Tracy Mehan, III writes over at American Spectator, with the ever-growing bipartisan spending that has taken place in recent years, we (through our elected Congress) have made our Posterity (read: grandchildren) our "very own indentured servants.

Indeed, where previous generations made huge sacrifices in order to leave a legacy of promise, hope, and liberty for future Americans, the legacy we are creating for ourselves is nothing more than securing the Blessings of a National Credit Card: "we buy now, you pay later." This is a raw deal for future generations of Americans, and a far cry from the promise of opportunity and freedom that has always made American exceptional and the American dream possible.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Sign the stimulus package, or the world will end.

"[I]f nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." - Barack Obama, The Action Americans Need, Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2009, at A17.

Of course, Obama is talking about the proposed stimulus package. If we don't pass the bill, threatens Obama, America may never recover.

So what is so important in this stimulus package that if we fail to approve it, America as we know it will cease to exist? National Review has a detailed list of ridiculous items included in the stimulus package.

If we don't spend $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion to provide “youth”
summer jobs for people up to the age of 24, America may sink further into recession.

If we do not spend $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, America may never recover.

If we do not spend $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship, America may never recover.

If we do not spend $1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries, America may never recover.

If we do not spend $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments, America may never recover.

If we do not spend $600 million to convert federal auto fleet to hybrids, America may never recover.

If we do not spend $650 million for digital TV coupons, including $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”, America may never recover.

The list goes on and on.

For someone who preaches Hope and Change, this seems like more of the same. And not very hopeful.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Today We Got Proposed To...

...by Barack Obama.

"If you put your trust in me — if you give me 'your hand and your heart' — then that's exactly what I intend to do as your next President."

Saturday, August 02, 2008

History 101

For those that don't know about history, here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: 1. Liberals, and 2. Conservatives. Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement. Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant.

Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above history lesson. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that they will immediately inform other true believers and more liberals just to tick them off.

And there you have it.

Let your next action reveal your true self...

Monday, July 28, 2008

The Messiah

He ventured forth to bring light to the world: The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers.

Read more about it here.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Friday, July 11, 2008

Friday, June 20, 2008

How many headlines?

We don't care much for the NBA, but for some reason we enjoyed jumping on the Celtics bandwagon this playoff season. The thought occurred to us today at work - how may headlines looked something like this after Boston won the Finals earlier this week?


Laker's can't handle The Truth








Turns out we're not that original. There are 252 hits on Google for that very phrase.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Boumediene v. Bush

Holding: "[A]liens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba . . . do have the habeas corpus privilege." Boumediene v. Bush, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 4887

Translation: "Alien enemy prisoners, waging a jihad against the American people and captured by our military in a war authorized by Congress, have a right — under our Constitution — to petition our courts for their release." National Review Online

Precedent: Never before in history has there been
an instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued [habeus corpus] on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.
Justice Robert Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court majority in Johnson v. Eisentrager ("case involving German operatives captured in China and held in zone of postwar Germany fully controled by occupying American forces.")

So much for precedent.


My Hero
:
"Eisentrager thus held — held beyond any doubt — that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign…. [The majority opinion] is a sheer rewriting of the case.… By blatantly distorting Eisentrager, the Court avoids the difficulty of explaining why it should be overruled."
Justice Scalia, dissenting in Boumediene v. Bush.

What this case is really about: "The United States Supreme Court now routinely invents constitutional rights to support whatever social, political, and legal goals it deems desirable. It is so much easier to legislate from the bench than it is through the branches of government that were created by our Founders to do just that." Peter Wehner, Supreme Disgrace, National Review Online

What it means:
"[F]oreign al-Qaeda killers detained in Cuba can march right into the federal district courts and demand what, suddenly, are their constitutional rights. In those courts, judges — without guidance and emboldened by the high court’s usurpation of war powers — will be encouraged to make it up as they go along: More access to classified information? Subpoenas commanding the testimony (and cross-examination) of our soldiers regarding the circumstances of capture? Miranda warnings? Prompt access to counsel, which is certain to halt any questioning — and thus any revelation of lifesaving intelligence — before it can even start? Full-blown trials in the criminal-justice system with the same presumptions of innocence, privacy, and other privileges vested in American citizens?" Editors, National Review Online.

More Scalia:
The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today… It sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.

"What drives today's decision is neither the meaning of the Suspension Clause, nor the principles of our precedents, but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy."

"The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
More commentary on this ruling by "the al-Quaeda wing of the U.S. Supreme Court":
Supreme Cowardice, American Spectator
Lord Kennedy, American Spectator



Remember what the Obamessiah said about the type of judges he'd nominate to the Supreme Court?


We're convinced: A vote for Obama is a vote for al-Quaeda.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

Oh yeah, and this:
  • "What they'll say is, "Well it costs too much money," but you know what? It would cost, about--It-- It--it would cost about the same as what we would spend--It--Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would cost us (nervous laugh). All right. Okay. We're going to--It--It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about - hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad. Everybody know that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer. I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours."-- Barack Hussein Obama