November 24, 2009


Holder has some nerve.  From Marc Thiessen:

Only after KSM had been exhausted as an intelligence source did President Bush transfer him and 13 other terrorists to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for trial by military commission. Once the legal obstacles had been cleared in 2008, the commissions finally got underway. And when they did, KSM and his co-conspirators all offered to plead guilty before a military commission and proceed straight to execution.

With his decision to send them to civilian court, Holder has effectively rejected KSM's guilty plea and told him, "No, Mr. Mohammed, first let us give you that stage you wanted in New York to rally jihadists, spread propaganda, and incite new attacks." Indeed, a lawyer for one of the detainees has said that all five intend to plead not guilty "so they can have a trial and try to get their message out." Were it not for Holder, they'd be on death row instead of preparing for a trial that will take years and make the O.J. Simpson case look like a traffic court hearing. And Holder chastises President Bush for delaying justice for 9/11 families?

Posted by: Sarah at 02:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.

November 23, 2009


Via Instapundit, who says, "A rule under which only politicians have guns strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds."

Chicago politicians are zealously committed to gun control in law but fairly relaxed about it in practice.

In 1994, State Sen. Rickey Hendon had an unregistered handgun stolen from his home in a burglary, and he didn't feign contrition about his disregard of the ordinance.

"I have a right to protect myself," he declared, noting that he had been burglarized before—and forgetting that the state legislature of which he is a member allows Illinois cities to deprive their citizens of that right. Asked if he would replace the lost piece, Hendon said, "No comment." The police were kind enough not to charge him.

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, another Chicagoan, has endorsed a nationwide ban on handguns and, in 1993, organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-in Day. But the following year, while running unsuccessfully for governor, he admitted he owned a handgun—"for protection," he explained—and hadn't seen fit to turn it in along with those other firearms. Lesser mortals apparently can protect themselves with forks and spoons.

So they write gun laws for the peons and have no intention of following the laws themselves.  Politicians are a real piece of work.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

November 19, 2009


So, I'm trying to understand this, really. The prison at Guantanamo is illegal and illegitimate, but Obama and Holder saying we'll try these men in NYC and, duh, of course they'll be convicted and will never be released...that's somehow more legitimate?

I heard someone on TV say, and I'm sorry I don't know who, that we all kinda thought OJ Simpson would be convicted too. Heh.

The whole point of a fair trial is that the person has a chance of being acquitted. If there is no chance of being acquitted, if the game is rigged from the outset, then there is no point in having a trial. So if you're going to guarantee that KSM will be convicted, you can't have a trial. It's simple. You cannot guarantee the outcome of a trial. If you do, it's a farce.  And if we're setting all this up to be a farce, just leave them at Gitmo.

That's my major problem with this idea. But Lindsey Graham also brings up another facet of the issue that's just as troubling.

(And I agree with Goldberg that, "For those of us frustrated with Graham, this makes up for a lot."  Heh.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

November 08, 2009


Mark Steyn would be happy: Uighurs are back in the news!  At Powerline:

It's hard to know what to make of this, apart from the fact that the world is a weird place, and getting weirder all the time. I'm fine with resettling the Uighurs, but is it really necessary for U.S. taxpayers to fund "spotless hardwood floors, a fresh coat of paint, new furniture and appliances, and a sweeping view of the ocean"? Not to mention housing, job training, food, and all other living expenses, including air conditioning, cable television and high-speed internet, which is a "rarity" in Palau. If the administration is looking for volunteers to live at government expense in an island paradise, count me in.

No doubt these expenses are a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions that the Obama administration is wasting here at home. But could it be any clearer that we are living under a government that treats our tax money--which is to say, our work; our time; our lives--with contempt?

Posted by: Sarah at 09:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.


They did it...

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell

And like those other two things that passed, it will eventually end up costing far more money than ever expected and will be the downfall of the US.


Posted by: Sarah at 08:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

November 07, 2009


Nothing burns me up more than politicians' contempt for people who want to adhere to the original constraints of our founding document.

Her sneering at the question makes me so mad I could scream.

A comment at youtube:

It has literally never occurred to any true Liberal Democrat that their policies should be in any way constrained by the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

November 04, 2009


Personally, I think many people in our country are just plain goofy.  When Republicans are in office, they want Democrats.  When Democrats are in, they want Republicans.  Look at the Rasmussen generic ballot poll.  Last year, people couldn't wait to have a Dem.  Now they're itchin' for an R.  Is politics just a large-scale case of 'the grass is always greener'?  What happened to voting on your principles?

I mean, a good number of these people in Virginia had to have voted for Pres Obama and then now voted for the Republican governor.  That does not make sense.

I don't get it.

I think Krauthammer makes a good point about the 2008 election:

It tells you that '08 was a charisma election, a one-shot deal, and all this talk about realignment, about a new era, of the death of Republicanism or conservatism is utter nonsense.


It was an unusual election last year. All the stars were aligned Democratic, charismatic candidate. Still only a seven point victory. The return to the norm is happening now, and we're going to see it tomorrow night.

I just don't understand voting on charisma, period.  Vote your principles.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 2 kb.


Mark Steyn:

Noor Almaleki, whom I wrote about over the weekend, has died, the latest Western victim of a Muslim honor killing. If there were a Matthew Shepard murder every few months, Frank Rich et al would be going bananas about the "climate of hate" in our society, but you can run over your daughter, decapitate your wife, drown three teenage girls and a polygamous spouse, and progressive opinion and the press couldn't give a hoot. Indeed, as The Atlantic notes, it's merely an obsession of us right-wing kooks.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
68kb generated in CPU 0.0171, elapsed 0.0894 seconds.
52 queries taking 0.078 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.