Written on March 17th, 2010 by adminno shouts
-By Warner Todd Huston
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see”–
Alice of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
Clearly the left are Aliceites. They are aficionados of Alice viewing the world through the looking glass. They want a world of nonsense, a world devoid of meaning so that everything can be molded and morphed at will into anything that appeals to temporary desires. It is called situational ethics, which are, of course, no ethics at all.
Today we have two examples of this, one in America and one in England. We’ll focus on England first.
The UK Telegraph is reporting about the new it, the new thing assuming a status of “personhood,” a genderless human. That’s right the Telegraph is purporting that a British citizen is “officially” a genderless human, neither male nor female.
Norrie May-Welby, we are told, was born a man but had a sex change operation in 1990. For a time this “person” lived as a woman. But now she-he-it has decided that, “The concepts of man or woman don’t fit me. The simplest solution is not to have any sex identification.”
And so, the Aliceites in British government decided to comply and make May-Welby an “official” person of “no specific gender.”
Just as the Brits claimed to have the first man to have a baby back in 2008, now the Brits claim to have the first genderless person. But true to their Aliceite tendencies, neither is true and both “would be what it isn’t.”
You see, the “first man to have a baby” was never a man — born a woman, period — and the first “genderless person” was born a man and is still despite the cosmetic veneer carved into his flesh.
My second story is in Washington D.C. where President Obama and his minions in Congress are trying to pass a bill that no one has voted for using the so-called process of “deeming” and the “Slaughter rule.”
Democrats can’t get enough votes for their socialist takeover of America’s healthcare system so, instead of applying the centuries old process of campaigning for a law, writing a law, and then seeing that law voted up or down by our duly elected representatives, the Democrats are peering through the looking glass to find the Aliceite way to pass a bill into law without anyone voting at all.
Just like the left in the west is making murderous Islam a protected class, just as it imagines it can create an economy by stifling business, just as these illogical nits imagine that they can destroy all history and make the world new merely by saying so, they’ve created a world where “nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t.”
As the Wall Street Journal says, “We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are.” But the WSJ is only focused on U.S. politics. A wider view would find that we are all Aliceites now.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 17th, 2010 by adminno shouts
-By Warner Todd Huston
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994. In March of 2010 he was impeached by the House of Representatives for bribe taking and corruption. I’m just curious, but have you heard this story about this Democrat judge being impeached?
On March 11, Porteous, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, was impeached by the House on a startling vote of 423 “yeas” for impeachment to NO votes at all coming to the support of the judge (with 7 not voting). Now his case moves to the Senate for the final judgment.
Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog has a nicely succinct post on the details, but the final analysis is that the Democrat judge violated nearly every article of comportment and law with his corrupt behavior.
If the Senate votes to convict, he will be the fourteenth impeached judge in American history and only the eighth federal judge to be impeached.
So, did you hear of this corrupt Democrat judge who was impeached yesterday? Do you think the Old Media will make much of this incident? Or is my report the only one you even saw?
**UPDATE**
Got a note from the good folks tat the Times-Picayune alerting me to their coverage of the three-year odyssey of this corrupt judge. They did some stellar work here. Check it out if you want to see an amazing amount of corruption.
http://topics.nola.com/tag/thomas-porteous/index.html
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 17th, 2010 by adminno shouts
-By Warner Todd Huston
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994. In March of 2010 he was impeached by the House of Representatives for bribe taking and corruption. I’m just curious, but have you heard this story about this Democrat judge being impeached?
On March 11, Porteous, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, was impeached by the House on a startling vote of 423 “yeas” for impeachment to NO votes at all coming to the support of the judge (with 7 not voting). Now his case moves to the Senate for the final judgment.
Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog has a nicely succinct post on the details, but the final analysis is that the Democrat judge violated nearly every article of comportment and law with his corrupt behavior.
If the Senate votes to convict, he will be the fourteenth impeached judge in American history and only the eighth federal judge to be impeached.
So, did you hear of this corrupt Democrat judge who was impeached yesterday? Do you think the Old Media will make much of this incident? Or is my report the only one you even saw?
**UPDATE**
Got a note from the good folks tat the Times-Picayune alerting me to their coverage of the three-year odyssey of this corrupt judge. They did some stellar work here. Check it out if you want to see an amazing amount of corruption.
http://topics.nola.com/tag/thomas-porteous/index.html
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 17th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Apparently, Queen Nancy was nipping at the green beer a day early
Democrats are considering using a complicated process to avoid a direct vote on the Senate-passed bill, which is unpopular with House Democrats. Instead, they would declare the Senate bill passed once the House votes to approve changes it wants.
Republicans said the strategy was designed to protect Democrats in November’s congressional elections by camouflaging their vote. “There is no way to hide from this vote,” House leader John Boehner said. “You can run but you can’t hide.”
Democrats noted Republicans used the process when they controlled the House and accused them of trying to change the subject. “If you don’t want to talk about substance, talk about process,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Republicans.
Let me ask you something, Nance. Can I call you Nance? If the substance is so utterly, wildly, madly awesome, then why are you having to go through this process? Why not just call for an actual vote, as “deemed” by the Constitution? What’s that? You don’t have the votes, and you want attempt to protect elected Democrats from the backlash? Strange.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic House campaign committee, said the procedure was “perfectly appropriate” and he was not concerned about a political backlash.
“At the end of the day, what the American people are going to look at is what this bill does to affect their daily lives,” he told reporters.
If that was the case, Chris, Democrat House leaders would just call for an up or down vote. But, you are correct: what the American People are going to do is look at how badly this legislation affects their lives. Sucks to be you.
Here are your St. Patrick’s Day Patriotic Pinups
I’m not sure who created the first one. There are about 5 different pinup painters it could be. The second is by Peter Dribben. For those not aware, every Sunday for years now I have been posting a Patriotic Pinup post, plus on special holidays, at my personal site, Pirate’s Cove.
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
Written on March 11th, 2010 by adminno shouts
Remember, the 9th is the most liberal Circuit court in the country, and has previously ruled against the use of “Under God” vis a vis the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (reversed by SCOTUS) in Newdow v. U.S. Congress. Among other activist and crazy decisions. So, how the heck did they come up with this?
A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.
Dude!
Share on Facebook
Tweet This Post
