Hee hee.
The date is April 19, and this is what Jim Sumpter had to say on his show today:
"There is a real undercurrent of thought that Barack Obama may have been born in Canada."
Now THAT is funny.
Imagine telling people you think Barack Obama was born in Canada; they ask for a source, and you just tell them your source is a "real undercurrent of thought".
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh haaaaaaaaaaaa
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Frank Talk by Retired Police Chief on Police Brutality
Read this amazingly candid article by Norm Stamper, Retired Seattle police chief, on why he engaged in Police Brutality.
Here's what Stamper has to say:
Here's what Stamper has to say:
Forty-three years ago I was an idealistic, vaguely liberal 21-year-old when the San Diego Police Department hired me. The last thing on my mind was taking to the streets to punish people. And lest there be any doubt about the department's policy, the police academy, even then, drove it home: excessive force was grounds for termination.
So, why did I abuse the very people I'd been hired to serve?
Not to get too psychological, I did it because the power of my position went straight to my head; because other cops I'd come to admire did it; and because I thought I could get away with it. Which I did--until a principled prosecutor slapped me upside the head and demanded to know whether the U.S. Constitution meant anything to me.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Is this David Brooks Statement True?
Here is what David Brooks had to say in a recent column.
As a Tea Partier, do you agree with Brooks?
. . . Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization.
As a Tea Partier, do you agree with Brooks?
As Good as it Gets
This is as good as it gets. Nice job Congressman Ryan:
"What this bill essentially does . . . it treats medicaid like a piggy bank!"
--
"First off, the bill has ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending!"
--
"You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting."
And now you can get the T-Shirt! I'm not making any money off this and I encourage others to start producing these T-Shirt too. My friend Andrew Ian Dodge, from the great state of Maine was kind enough to whip one of these out.
Just click on the image below to get your "Hiding spending doesn't reduce spending!" T-Shirt.
"Hiding spending doesn't reduce spending!"
--
--
"What this bill essentially does . . . it treats medicaid like a piggy bank!"
--
"First off, the bill has ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending!"
--
"You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting."
And now you can get the T-Shirt! I'm not making any money off this and I encourage others to start producing these T-Shirt too. My friend Andrew Ian Dodge, from the great state of Maine was kind enough to whip one of these out.
Just click on the image below to get your "Hiding spending doesn't reduce spending!" T-Shirt.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Frank Rich Oathkeeper Challenge
In his February 27 New York Times column, Frank Rich called the Oath Keepers "a rising militia group of veterans and former law enforcement officers who champion disregarding laws they oppose".
In response to this characterization, we have published the Oath Keepers "Declaration of Laws We Will not Obey".
We'd like Frank Rich to tell us which of the following laws or orders he thinks law enforcement officers or members of the military ought to obey?
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
In response to this characterization, we have published the Oath Keepers "Declaration of Laws We Will not Obey".
We'd like Frank Rich to tell us which of the following laws or orders he thinks law enforcement officers or members of the military ought to obey?
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Frank Rich Blowing Chunks of Joe Stack
Hear ye.
Hear ye.
New York Times Columnist Frank Rich wants to tie Joe Stack to the Tea Party movement.
But he can't.
So in a sort rambling clear-as-mud February 27 diatribe, Rich presents America with a set of presumptions and unfounded assumptions. The funniest part is the first sentence -- "No one knows what history will make of the present — least of all journalists, who can at best write history’s sloppy first draft."
No one much thinks of New York Times columnists as journalists anymore, least of all the American public which has been consistently voting against the left wing Times pundits with their dollars, to the extent that the Times has releases major numbers of employees in the last five years and is bleeding money like grape juice.
Anyway, I am just left wondering what distinguishes the paid columnists such as Frank Rich from the thousands (possibly millions) of unpaid columnists who do the same thing.
I mean, I think I get Frank Rich's message. He doesn't like the Tea Parties (and therefore must love big Government), and he wants to tie the Tea Partiers to other groups that don't like big government, some of which he has some dirt on . . . even if he doesn't really have any dirt directly on the Tea Parties.
But I wish Frank Rich would get it right.
Here is what Frank Rich had to say about the oath keepers -- "a rising militia group of veterans and former law enforcement officers who champion disregarding laws they oppose".
O really!
Perhaps columnist Rich should go back and read the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunals and compare them to the positions of the Oath Keepers.
Hear ye.
New York Times Columnist Frank Rich wants to tie Joe Stack to the Tea Party movement.
But he can't.
So in a sort rambling clear-as-mud February 27 diatribe, Rich presents America with a set of presumptions and unfounded assumptions. The funniest part is the first sentence -- "No one knows what history will make of the present — least of all journalists, who can at best write history’s sloppy first draft."
No one much thinks of New York Times columnists as journalists anymore, least of all the American public which has been consistently voting against the left wing Times pundits with their dollars, to the extent that the Times has releases major numbers of employees in the last five years and is bleeding money like grape juice.
Anyway, I am just left wondering what distinguishes the paid columnists such as Frank Rich from the thousands (possibly millions) of unpaid columnists who do the same thing.
I mean, I think I get Frank Rich's message. He doesn't like the Tea Parties (and therefore must love big Government), and he wants to tie the Tea Partiers to other groups that don't like big government, some of which he has some dirt on . . . even if he doesn't really have any dirt directly on the Tea Parties.
But I wish Frank Rich would get it right.
Here is what Frank Rich had to say about the oath keepers -- "a rising militia group of veterans and former law enforcement officers who champion disregarding laws they oppose".
O really!
Perhaps columnist Rich should go back and read the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunals and compare them to the positions of the Oath Keepers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)