News Ticker powered by Fox News

Showing posts with label Liberal Stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Stupidity. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

N. Dakota: Police Twarted by Food Stamp Law

Police had to waste months of man hours tracking a thief down that should have only taken a few days, thanks to the hypersensitivity of those who collect government assistance:

John Schweitzer swiped his credit card, bagged his groceries and walked out of a Wal-Mart without his wallet. When he returned a moment later, it was gone.

Schweitzer's misfortune should have been an open-and-shut legal case. The thief was caught on video surveillance, and he used his own food stamp swipe card to pay for groceries before leaving with Schweitzer's wallet.

But a federal law prohibiting the disclosure of information about food stamp recipients - even to law enforcement, unless a specific name is provided - meant it would take months and a lot of legwork before an arrest was made.


What is the point of keeping the name of a criminal away from the police?

Again liberal thinking ends up wasting money that had no business being wasted.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Attorney General Holder Opens Door For Bush & Co. Extradition For Trial Internationally?

The AP buried this statement deep in their article of Holder commenting on the status of closing Gitmo and the topic of the Spanish inquisition of Bush came up. Apparently, they either don't see the danger of this thinking or they know it is and are trying to save Obama from another embarrassing quote from his Cabinet. My vote is for the latter:

In speaking to reporters Wednesday, Holder also said it is possible the United States could cooperate with a foreign court's investigation of Bush administration officials.

Holder spoke before the announcement that a Spanish magistrate had opened an investigation of Bush officials on harsh interrogation methods. Holder didn't rule out cooperating in such a probe.

"Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it," Holder said.


Hold it right there. ANY request from ANY foreign court will be considered.

What?

This is a nightmare for Obama just waiting to happen. The One will be flooded with requests from every two-bit court in the Middle East bent on punishing "the Great Satan" and every liberal European judge who wants to drag Dubya through the mud.

Mr. Holder needs to think before he speaks.

Ed Morrissey had this to say about Holder's statement:

Again, as I wrote last month, such machinations are an insult to American sovereignty.  The Obama administration has a duty to defend American sovereignty and to stop old colonial powers (heh) from imposing their laws on other nations.  That’s the height of arrogance, and if Barack Obama doesn’t want to stand up to it, Congress should demand to know why Obama and Holder are cooperating with an attempt by Spain to impose their laws on American citizens.  It goes against everything for which this nations stands.


He has a point. If Obama acquiesces to the Spainish court's demands, the sovereignty of the US as a nation might as well not even exist.

Dafydd ab Hugh takes it a step further:

If Garzón (Spanish judge) has legal authority to demand we hand over evidence, he also has legal authority to demand we hand over "war criminals," from American military personnel, to John Yoo, to Jay Bybee, to William Haynes, to Douglas Feith, to Alberto Gonzales, to Richard Myers, to Dick Cheney -- even to former President George W. Bush himself.


This would open a can of worms that would put every administration not just Bush's but also Clinton, the first Bush, or, dare I say it, The One himself in danger of getting carted off to only God knows where to stand trial for various "crimes" real or imagined.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

New York Times Wakes Up From Their Liberal Fantasy Land

The Times Clears Up a Misunderstanding
March 5, 2009 Posted by John at 8:05 PM

The New York Times has long been an advocate for illegal immigration. Today we got some insight, perhaps, into what has motivated the Times' editors, via the paper's corrections section:

"An editorial on Feb. 22 stated incorrectly that unlawfully entering the country is not a criminal offense. It is a misdemeanor for a first-time offender."

It's quite remarkable: until today, the Times' editors believed that illegal immigration was legal!


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/022987.php
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I know that they were pushing their open borders ideology on their readers, but I never knew that they were delusional.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Stupidest Wacky Liberal Idea EVER

Psychology Today Blog: Ban Having Children for 5 Years By Erin Brown
February 9, 2009 - 12:09 ET

A bestselling author has called octuplets-mother Nadya Sulamen a 'murderer' and warns of overpopulation saying, "we need to lose 4.4 billion people."

“STOP HAVING CHILDREN.” Steven Kotler has declared that responsible adults should stop having children in order to save the planet. Those who are having kids, are being selfish and stealing from the future, the rest of humanity, and “every living thing on the earth,” he wrote. Have too many kids and you should go to jail.

This isn’t a joke. Kotler writes a blog called “The Playing Field” on the Psychology Today Web site. He is a best selling author and an advocate of controlling population growth. His latest solution: a five-year moratorium on having kids.

Kotler’s reasoning is that the planet is running out of resources. “You think the economy is bad now – wait a few years,” Kotler said. “Wait until we’re almost completely out of oil and food and water and available land ... we need to lose 4.4 billion people and we need to lose them fast.”

Those comments came just days after Nadya Sulamen, a single mother of six, gave birth to octuplets, and Kotler had an opinion about her as well. “She’s a criminal,” Kotler declared. “She’s a murderer. She’s not only guaranteeing her kids a very hard life, she’s killing all of us.”

Kotler isn’t the the first person to say humans are destroying the planet. Paul Watson of the radical Sea Shepherd Society, has called for the global population to fall below one billion, because “we are killing our host, the planet Earth,” Watson opined. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement,” Watson has said.

Like Watson, Kotler doesn’t think much of humans. In December, writing on “The Playing Field,” he said:

So do I think that a dog's life is worth more than a humans? I think that no dog has ever, intentionally, for reasons of selfish greed, destroyed their home like we have ours. I think that yes, there are way too many people on the planet, and while I'm not advocating mass euthanasia (though mandatory birth control sounds pretty good to me), I think before we start saying humans are worth more than dogs, we need to examine exactly what we have contributed to the quality of life for all species on this planet, not just our own.

Such ideas are hardly original. Thomas Malthus, an influential 18th century economist and philosopher, was an early proponent of population control. He reduced the human position on earth to a mathematical observation: “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio,” Malthus wrote in 1798. “Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.”

Nearly two centuries later, America scientist Paul Ehrlich took up the Malthusian standard, and added his own shrill urgency. In his hugely successful 1968 book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich foresaw that, "In the 1970s and 1980s…hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

Ehrlich’s answer was “compulsory birth regulation…(through) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size."

Of course, Malthus, Ehrlich and other doomsayers have been proven spectacularly wrong. Kolter didn’t address that fact in his piece.

Erin Brown is an intern for the Culture and Media Institute. Matt Philbin is the Managing Editor for CMI.


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/erin-brown/2009/02/09/psychology-today-blog-ban-having-children-5-years
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
Run that by me again, please.
"'STOP HAVING CHILDREN.' Steven Kotler has declared that responsible adults should stop having children in order to save the planet. Those who are having kids, are being selfish and stealing from the future, the rest of humanity, and “every living thing on the earth,” he wrote. Have too many kids and you should go to jail."

"His latest solution (to overpopulation and basically all of the world's problems): a five-year moratorium on having kids."

I don't even know how to respond this level of stupidity really. This plan, like Pelosi's idea that less children is better for the economy, is moronic on a level that I didn't this was possible.

That would cripple the world's economy in a ripple effect that would bring the world to the brink of disaster. Think about it. The first to be effected would be gynocologists, pediatricians, and hospitals. Then, companies like Gerber and Pampers would go bankrupt after 0 sales over a 5-year period. Next, would be children's clothing manufacturers and K-12 teachers. Sixteen years down the road car and insurance companies' stocks would plummet. A couple years after that all colleges would go out of business.

Come on!