Click to bookmark this page!

- Contact Me -
Include your email address

<< February 2004 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29


Just in case you weren't sure...
If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

Please sign the Ted Kennedy Resignation Petition!


rss feed

Shameless Self-Promotion

Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com


An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!



Perspective
Joe Mariani

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by precision use of American military force under George W. Bush:
50 million in just two years

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
Zero. Ever.
...

The problem seems to me to be the definition of "free speech". Liberals define it as anything they want to say or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a "peace" march, send money to a terrorist organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
...

Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force.
...

Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat.
...

Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature.
...

Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.

Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."

Top News Headlines

Iraq Blogs

The Messopotamian
Iraq at a Glance
Iraq the Model
Hammorabi
Iraq & Iraqis
Nabil's Blog
Road of a Nation
The Sun of Iraq
Healing Iraq

Iraqi Bloggers Central

The Truth About Iraq
Liberating Iraq
Pictures from Iraq
The Iraqi Holocaust: a collection
Iraq's Mass Graves

Mudville Gazette:
News the media can't use

The Other Iraq:
The Iraq you never hear about in the MSM

Michael Yon - Online Magazine
Dispatches not filed from the Baghdad Hilton hot tub


United States Central Command


Humor

Infamous Monsters of Filmland

Day by Day: Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political bent

The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?

What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble of figuring out what kind of idiot you are

Blame Bush
Because Bush is to blame... for everything

Sacred Cow Burgers
Web Archive

Satirical Political Beliefs Test

Communists for Kerry

Cooper's Protester Guide

Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.


Analysis

When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)

Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism

How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan

Did We Botch The Occupation?
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946 and compare.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq

Pictures from Hate Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate Israel/general wacko rallies
- by Zombie

Jihad Watch


2004 Election Links

Looosers: Sorry, Everybody!
Winners: You're Welcome, Everybody!


2008 Election

Peace Through Strength PAC


Duncan Hunter in 2008
official site



Click to join duncanhunterforpresident2008 at Yahoo! Groups

Useful Links

FamilyWishList
Share your wish list with friends and family

Virtual Tourist
Travel tips from real travelers

RemBot.com
Appointment calendar with email/wireless notification

PriceGrabber.com
Convenient comparison shopping


Reading Material

RightWingNews
The best right-wing news and commentary

GOP USA Commentary Corner

Men's News Daily
The New Media

OpinionEditorials.com
a project of Frontiers of Freedom

ChronWatch
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news

American Daily
Analysis with political and social commentary

The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion

News By Us
...not news bias

IntellectualConservative.com
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics

CommonConservative.com
Practical conservatism for the common man

USASentinel
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World

PhillyFuture.org
Philly news and blogs


Now Reading

The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek



Articles Previously Published at
Useless-Knowledge.com

- When Good Liberals Go Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
- Whining of Mass Distraction: How To Discredit A President - 06/05/03
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 06/10/03
- Liberalism: Curable or Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
- Is Hamas Exempt from the War on Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance, Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On - 07/03/03
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again - 07/13/03
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified? - 07/20/03
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder - 08/06/03
- The Meaning of Right - Why I Supported the Iraq War - 08/10/03
- More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics? - 03/04/04


Blogs to Browse

Across the Pond
AlphaPatriot
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
DowneastBlog
ElectionProjection
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
LogiPundit.com
MarkLevinFan
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
Moonbattery
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
RadioBS.net
Rebel Rouser
RightThinkingGirl
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
The YNC
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
WuzzaDem.com



Locations of visitors to this page


Friday, February 20, 2004
Turnabout: Marriage Laws and Gun Laws

What would the Liberal reaction be if other laws in California were simply declared null and void, based on nothing more than personal whim and a convoluted interpretation of the law?  If, as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom claims, he has no responsibility to uphold the law (Proposition 22) because he feels it conflicts with California's Constitution, then perhaps California's restrictive gun laws -- which conflict with the US Constitution -- should be abolished as well.


SACREMENTO CA:  Earlier today, California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger finally decided to address the issue of illegally-altered marriage licenses being issued by the Mayor of San Francisco... by agreeing with him in principle.

"Perhaps Mayor Newsom has a point," Arnold said at a press conference in Sacremento. "Perhaps it really is okay to throw away a law you don't agree with if you can claim a higher law conflicts with it.  Therefore, I am announcing that restrictions on guns in this state will no longer be in effect as of now."   An angry murmur arose in the audience, comprised mostly of reporters.  "I find that Ca-lee-fornia's overly restrictive gun laws conflict with the Second Amendment of the Constitution -- the highest law of the land -- which says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  From this moment forward, guns of all types will be sold without restrictive background checks or licenses needed, following the example set by Mayor Newsom of San Francisco.  I just want to thank the Mayor for pointing out that elected officials have no responsibility to uphold any laws they don't agree with."  Red-faced, angry reporters began shouting questions, but were stunned into silence when the Governator reached under the podium and brought out a prototype Alliant Techsystems OICW rifle with two barrels.  "Something like this, which holds thirty rounds of 5.56mm and six 20mm high-explosive rounds, makes a handy personal defense weapon.  And it's even ergonomically designed!  Now everyone in Ca-lee-fornia who can afford one can own one, no questions asked."  Arnold posed at the podium, weapon at the ready.  "Any questions?"

Once the Governator's suspension of gun laws went into effect, Liberals throughout the state of California began literally spontaneously combusting from sheer outrage as gun enthusiasts from around the country jammed the stores seeking newly-deregulated weapons.  Parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco were heavily damaged by wildfires, spread by crowds of detonating left-leaning sign-wavers.  The crowds had gathered in screaming protest of Arnold's "reckless disregard for the law," as one protester yelled just before bursting into flames with a smoky "FOOF!", setting two other people and a cafe awning on fire.  Human rights groups advised protesters to make their signs out of non-flammable materials.

In Washington DC, President Bush was once again defending himself against personal attacks by Democrats at a press conference when the story broke. 

"Mr. President!" shouted a reporter. "Don't you think you'd better do something about this situation in California at once?  Liberals all over the state are spontaneously combusting!"
"Those're the same folks that called me Hitler, right?" the President asked.
"Err... well, yes," the reporter said, "but what are you going to do to help them?"
"Well, I'm gonna have to call for a committee to look into the situation out there in California," said President Bush.  "They should have some sort of recommendation in about a week or two."
"But that's too late!" demanded another intrepid member of the press. "California's Liberals will be dead in the streets by then!"
"Oh, that's a good point," said the President. "I'll have to get a committee to look into that littering problem out there, too.  That sounds like a health risk to me."

"FOOF!" said the reporter...

Posted at Friday, February 20, 2004 by CavalierX

Dave Belisaurius
February 20, 2004   03:29 PM PST
 
Too funny!
American
February 21, 2004   03:31 PM PST
 
Get over it. The law is what the court(s) say it is. That's the American system. You may not like it, but that's how we choose to run the country. You right-wingers have nothing to say about it - you don't appoint the judges.
JM
February 21, 2004   03:41 PM PST
 
It's true; we've been living under an unelected krytocracy for too long! We need to stop judges from rewriting our laws whenever they feel the urge.
American
February 21, 2004   11:36 PM PST
 
You are fighting yesterday's battle. The judiciary has already established that it is the highest level of government. Surely you don't require examples. Also, federal judges (and some state highest-court judges) are appointed for life. They can be removed only by impeachment, which won't happen based on their decisions and edicts. I repeat, there are no longer any such things as statutory or constitutional law. The law is simply whatever the court says it is.
Robert McClelland
February 23, 2004   01:33 PM PST
 
>We need to stop judges from rewriting our laws whenever they feel the urge.

Of course, that is only happening in bizarro Republican world. The judges are only interpreting the laws, not re-writing them. And if the laws are not being interpreted the way you think they should be it only illustrates the weak case your side presents to the judges.
CavalierX
February 23, 2004   04:38 PM PST
 
I wish I could be as blind as you are, Robert. I really do. The fact is that we are at the mercy of courts which "interpret" laws to mean anything they like, and even (as in the case of Taxachussetts) dictate that the legislature must write a law to include gay "marriage" by May. The judicial branch exists (in these cases) to decide whether a given law is in accordance with the Constitution, NOT to tell the Legislature what laws to write and how to write them.
American
February 24, 2004   11:34 AM PST
 
I repeat, this horse has long since left the barn. This country is now run by the judiciary. We must all adapt to the new system.
Robert McClelland
February 24, 2004   04:10 PM PST
 
>NOT to tell the Legislature what laws to write and how to write them.

Nice goalpost shifting, Jim. To clear up my point though, you are admitting that the courts do not RE-WRITE laws as you claimed earlier. Is that correct?
Name
February 24, 2004   04:30 PM PST
 
Nice try, Robert. You're trying to say that if he hands you a pen and dictates a letter for you to write, the letter isn't from him. Bah!
Robert McClelland
February 24, 2004   06:54 PM PST
 
Nice try nothing. Jim said that the courts are re writing laws. That means, according to Jim, there are laws in existence that are being changed by the courts. Now Jim has backpeddaled to say that the courts are writing laws. I'll address that point when Jim agrees that he was wrong to say the courts are re-writing the laws or ponies up some evidence of the courts actually re-writing a law.
JM
February 24, 2004   08:36 PM PST
 
Now you're just being a troll, Robert, desperate to avoid facing facts. Funny how you can try to argue a distinction between a court dictating how laws must be written or altered and courts physically writing the laws, but can't even notice the difference between the initials JM and the name Jim. Give it up, Robert -- we're living under a krytocracy already. I already gave you an example. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ordered the Mass. Legislature to write a law giving gay people the right to "marry". They DO have the alternative of creating a specific ban, but that's unlikely to happen. It'll just get overturned in the courts anyway.
Robert McClelland
February 24, 2004   10:47 PM PST
 
>but can't even notice the difference between the initials JM and the name Jim.

Oops, sorry, Joe. I don't know where I got the name Jim from.

As for the rest of this, I was only responding you your statement that the courts are re-writing laws. That is not the case. Whether or not they are dictating that laws be written is another matter that I have no knowledge of.
Adam Crocker
March 3, 2004   05:40 PM PST
 
Er...what was the point or humourous part of this article again?
JM
March 3, 2004   10:01 PM PST
 
Humor? What humor? This actually happened, I tell you!
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments




Previous Entry Home Next Entry