Wit or Wisdom

Note: Following post is from a HUMOROUS t-shirt from thoseshirts.com. If you take this seriously, you need to get a life.

– Terrorists Practice a Radical Form of Islam: Twice the murdering, half the bathing.
– They enjoy blowing themselves up, and we enjoy blowing them up. You’d think we would get along better.
– Their favorite military hero is Napoleon Blownapart.
– They will riot and kill each other over a few stupid cartoons. We should make more of those.
– Terrorists want to sneak explosive liquids into airplanes. If you see any children on your flight, tackle them and confiscate their juiceboxes.
– Our latest intelligence indicates the Koran is really just a bomb-making manual.
– If a guy is being over-sensitive to racial profiling, he may be a terrorist. Strangle him with your shoelaces just in case.
– Terrorists act all hurt if you draw Mohammed, flush a Koran, or bomb Mecca. What babies.

2x time digit for the first time!

I do believe they will find a way to link anything they can to the religion of GW… no, it’s not George Washington or George W. Bush, but Global Warming.

Harry Reid says that Global Warming is “one reason”.

CNN Predicts Possible “Century of Fires.”

I just heard Rush mention, sitting here at my computer listening to him live, that the last time we heard about Global Warming in relation to a catastrophe? Yeah… that was a big hurricane. So are they telling us both fire AND floods are caused by GW?

Oddly, as they try to pin this on GW, they also try to pin it on the GW currently sitting in the White House. California Democratic congressman and senators have been complaining that their National Guard troops are taken away and sent to Iraq and so they can’t fight the fire. A few problems with this:

1) You don’t typically fight fires with the military. While they can do that, that’s not their primary job, their primary job is to fight wars. Now if California had some conservatives in charge, they might not have so many thick forests and such optimum conditions for wildfires, because they’d allow the foresters to go in and thin the forests out.

2) No one, not even the military, can simply blow on the fires and make them stop. It just doesn’t happen. Especially not with fires that big and with that much fuel.

3) The California liberals don’t care squat about the military any other time… until they need to be rescued.

4) Oddly, we’re seeing liberal racism in action here. They are comparing the situation there to that in New Orleans. No comparison. Whatsoever. These people have food. They have money. Their cities will not be utterly destroyed, and if they are, they will quickly be rebuilt by that money.

Article by Pat Buchanan…

Roundhouse kick to all other candidates.

From Newsmax…

Among people polled by Zogby, Huckabee had the lowest percentage of voters who said they would never consider voting for him… merely 35%. Stack it up against Hillary Clinton’s numbers, 50%, and Governer Huckabee would have a pretty large chance of winning the election. Seems they ought to reconsider who’s the “most electable” in the Republican party, if that’s what they’re really going to use to determine their nomination.

I won’t post the video, as it includes some rather disgusting language (you can find it on youtube if you want to see it that bad) but here’s the best line Bill Maher had when he was kicking out loud, stupid protestors on his live show:

This isn’t the Iowa Caucus! This isn’t a debate! It’s a debate between us! (His guests and him.) You’re in the audience… audience comes from the Latin: “to listen.”

Today, toiling away at my shelving job at our local library, I noticed a rather interesting headline on a recent cover of Time Magazine. The question asked was, “Is the Supreme Court Still Relevant.” In the article, the idea is pushed that the Supreme Court “is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans.” A section from an early paragraph:

Perhaps that the conservatism of John Roberts goes much deeper than mere politics. That he favors authority and tradition while distrusting reforms and revolutions because he believes in the ancient notion that it is human nature to screw things up. The image of the Supreme Court as a great righter of wrongs, ingrained among liberals by the stirring cases of the Warren Court–school desegregation; one man, one vote; right to counsel; and so on–has no power over a judge so rooted in the conservatism of the 18th century, of Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke, a mind-set always focused on the fact that even well-intended changes often go awry.

While they may have a point with this statement, it seems to me to be nothing more than a liberal paper trying to diminish the noticeability of the fact that the High Court is suddenly the most conservative part of the federal government. This former liberal bastion and refuge has suddenly been converted for the use of hateful war-mongers, mommies who don’t want to be mommy killers, abortion doctor killers, and gay people killers. Ironic, isn’t it, that when the court was solidly in the liberal camp, the five or six people who made up the majority in every case were not only the law, but they were above the Constitution. Every decision they made (favoring liberals, which was most of them) was ground-breaking and dynamic. The media waited with bated breath to hear how the Supremes would crush their iron fists upon the “stupid fat liars” heads. Now… nary a word. The biggest ruling so far by the new Supreme Court, about partial-birth abortion, was impugned by the Time article…

In 1973 Roe v. Wade dramatically altered the abortion options of most American women. By contrast, the abortion case decided last term staked out an equivocal position on a specific procedure that, according to abortion-rights advocates, is rarely used.

So, we see the new liberal tactic of denying reality… oddly, if it is so little used, how come they fought it as if when this law were passed and confirmed by the Oligarchy of the United States, all civil rights in this country would disappear?

The article appears to lament the dryness and properness of the Roberts court, as if the highest court in the land were supposed to be some sort of nine-ring circus purely for our entertainment value. It also seems to imply that justices are incapable of any independent thought, and are merely acting out their parts in a play, with Anthony Kennedy as the determining factor. They claim that the court has nothing new to say (see partial-birth abortion ruling, the first major ruling in favor of life). Of course, if the majority of the Roberts Court’s decisions had not been conservative, then the justices would be lionized, as was Sandra Day O’Connor, whose only wrong was to hand that undeserving little twit “W” the White House. Yet, just as soon as the author, David Von Drehle, gets done lamenting that the court is too boring, he says that they are little children constantly looking to blame the other side in decisions as being soft and endangering precious civil liberties. Incredible what a difference just two justices make, isn’t it? Especially when only one of them really has a different agenda than his predecessor.

Perhaps the real question should be, is Time Magazine relevant in any form or fashion anymore?

That’s just weird… apparently it has now been “scientifically” proven that short people really do have a chip on their shoulder.

Glad I’m tall.

From the Politico…

Just one short comment… it’s really sad that all conservative leaders seem to be worried about is whether a man is electable or not… and where did we get this idea of electable? If that was the case, John McCain would have won the 2000 nomination and not W. Obviously, it’s a very overrated idea.