They say it takes one to know one. If so, maybe we should listen to Sherrilyn Ifill on Sonia Sotomayor’s racist (or not) status. Ifill wants us to believe her. Really, she does. Here are shorts from Ifill’s piece published today at CNN (with my emphasis and commentary): [click to continue…]
{ 23 comments }
Is Sonia Sotomayor a “racist”? Most would agree that the answer depends on how we define the term “racist”. But how many Americans are comfortable with a Supreme Court justice who publicly states that the answer depends on the race or sex of the listener? This question is now before the United States Senate which will soon to take up the nomination of Ms. Sotomayor. [click to continue…]
{ 0 comments }
The short video below, in which Sonia Sotomayor effectively touts courts as legislators, suggests that one smart ass has just nominated another to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is a clown. Her nomination is yet another indication of Mr. Obama’s (and George HW Bush’s) lack of seriousness. The boy president strikes again using a weapon crafted by a Bush.
{ 4 comments }
It’s always been a matter of curiousity to me that those who practice homosexuality in the United States feel so oppressed. They have jobs, they can march and say ridiculous things whenever they want. In some states — like California — their “lifestyle” is even given special legal recognition through “civil unions”.
Yet they cry that they are “oppressed” and “discriminated” against. They demand state-imposed “legitimacy” and attempt to twist the definition of “marriage” to conform to their own view of reality. Moscow, Russia offers a view of what oppression really looks like. [click to continue…]
{ 4 comments }
I’m experiencing serious cognitive dissonance over Sen. Patrick Leahy’s absurd assertion that 9th Circuit Court judge Jay Bybee should resign for his role in helping write what has come to be known as the “Bybee Memo”. Leahy needs to read his history and get a sense of perspective. [click to continue…]
{ 3 comments }
I’ve been asked what I think about Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) selecting Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. as his Ambassador to China. It’s an interesting choice on so many levels. On one level, you have Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Raul Castro who endorsed Obama followed by Obama endorsing Jon Huntsman. Says something about Huntsman, doesn’t it?
On another, China’s proclivity for rampant, state-mandated abortion and other human rights violations coupled with Mr. Obama’s virulent pro-abortion stance should provide a serious Mormon plenty of opportunities for serious moral angst. Time will tell how seriously we should take Mr. Huntsman’s religious inclinations.
For Utah Republicans, I think this can only be a good thing. It temporarily moves off the Republican political chess board a faux conservative who would have only caused John-McCain-like problems down the road. I have visions of Huntsman pulling an Arlen Specter in four or five years. He really isn’t a Republican, folks. I think that’s the real takeaway from this appointment.
{ 27 comments }
Many thanks to the “gay marriage” proponents who have so artfully given the pro-marriage megaphone to Miss California Carrie Prejean. While she’s not the most articulate spokesperson for traditional marriage, she has her heart in the right place.
Prejean has done a remarkable job of capitalizing on the media firestorm created largely by the virulent gay lobby who are happy to jettison free speech in pursuit of a faux, government-imposed legitimacy for their nihilistic “lifestyle”. Congrats to Carrie and Donald Trump for making the most of the opportunity. This has been a real treat. Video below.
{ 4 comments }
Whatever Go Daddy’s current share of the web hosting market, I expect it to decline significantly as soon as bloggers and others get wind of what’s under the hood of their Terms of Service Agreement. I’ve rarely seen a more obnoxious, in-your-face demonstration of PC/moralistic gobbledy-gook — a certified case of Lawyers Gone Wild. What I find most absurd in this disgusting piece of legalese is in bold italics below:
Except as set forth below, Go Daddy may also cancel Your use of the Services, after thirty (30) days, if You are using the Services, as determined by Go Daddy in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to: activities designed to embarrass defame, , harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties; activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which You conduct business; activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, . . . ; activities that are tortuous, vulgar, obscene, invasive of the privacy of a third party, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable; . . . and activities designed to harm or use unethically minors in any way. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in the event Go Daddy cancels Your Services during the first thirty (30) days after You purchase the Services, You will receive a refund of any fees paid to Go Daddy in connection with the Services being cancelled. In the event Go Daddy deletes Your Services because they are being used in association with . . . morally objectionable activities, no refund will be issued. You agree You will not be entitled to a refund of any fees paid to Go Daddy if, for any reason, Go Daddy takes corrective action with respect to Your improper or illegal use of its Services.
What this “agreement” does (can it be said to be an agreement since it has been changed retroactively for current service recipients?) is puts Go Daddy (of all companies) in the position of policing the morality and “objectionableness” of what bloggers put on their websites. This itself, is immoral and objectionable.
Go Daddy ought to be ashamed of pulling such a stunt. And, yes, Go Daddy, I am writing this for the purpose of shaming and exposing your company and whatever legal Smeagol wrote this awful language into an agreement governing a tool that is essential to the maintenance of free speech in these United States. This has no place in a pluralistic, democratic society.
{ 6 comments }
The relationship between Cuba and the United States began badly and, during the John F. Kennedy administration, became much worse. More often than not, the record shows the United States as an irrational, grasping aggressor. It is high time that we end U.S. hypocrisy toward Cuba. We can do so without condoning the Castro brothers’ murderous, totalitarian reign.
Along these lines, I fully endorse Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s comments in her article, My Father’s Stand on Cuba Travel, in today’s Washington Post. With our current, Cold-War-era approach to Cuba, we hurt no one in the world quite so much as ourselves.
{ 0 comments }
