The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
Diversity
“…a white guy driving his Chinese girlfriend in an Italian car to a Mexican restaurant, and getting pulled over by a black cop.” – Anonymous
Now, if you want to see a REAL example of “diversity,” go read the poem Marko posted. (via Tam. And she’s right. “If you don’t like it, you must be some kind of godless commie hippie.”)
Insert Hysterical Laughter Here
`Che’ Shirts, Fake Rebels, Acting Class Helped Free Betancourt
The T-shirts with images of Ernesto “Ché” Guevara convinced Ingrid Betancourt. She assumed the men with the iconic revolutionary on their chests were ushering her into the helicopter for transfer to yet another rebel camp.
Instead, Betancourt, along with 14 other hostages, was taking her first steps toward freedom after six years of captivity at the hands of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Less than 24 hours later, she would be reunited with the two children she hadn’t seen since her capture.
The white helicopter Betancourt climbed into was piloted by Colombian troops, and the six men wearing Ché shirts were soldiers who tricked the rebels into following “orders” to move the prisoners. Colombian intelligence had infiltrated the group, known as the FARC, and started planning the rescue mission as long as a year ago.
RTWT.
I wonder if they bought their Ché shirts from ThoseShirts.com?
This is just too rich!
On This Independence Day
I thought I’d throw a handful of M-80’s on the fire.
Doing some research for another essay, I found a transcript of a Hannity & Colmes show from 2004 that literally had my mouth hanging open. I thought I’d post the part that did that to me:
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: A teacher is being banned by his school from showing students historical documents that make any reference to God, including the Declaration of Independence. The teacher is now suing the school for discrimination, claiming he’s been singled out because he is a Christian. The school district released the following statement in response:
“The district believes that well-established constitutional principles relating to the separation of church and state must prevail. The district has not violated the constitutional rights of Mr. Williams or any other person. The district denies the allegations in the complaint and has referred the case to its attorneys.”
Joining us now from California is fifth-grade teacher Steven Williams. And from Phoenix, Arizona, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, Jordan Lorence.
Good to have you both with us.
Let me begin with you. Tell us what happened.
STEVEN WILLIAMS, FIFTH-GRADE TEACHER: Well, basically, it’s just sad to me that the separation of church and state has been just kind of warped to mean that we can’t even include some of our founding documents in the classroom.
COLMES: But what happened to you? Explain to us, explain to our audience what happened to you.
WILLIAMS: Yes. Last year, I hadn’t changed my curriculum much at all. At the beginning of last year, towards about three weeks into it, after studying the Pledge, the student asked, Mr. Williams, why do we have “under God” in the Pledge?
And, at the time, as you know, the Supreme Court was going to be hearing that case, so I thought, wow, current events as well as past events is a very appropriate topic to talk about.
COLMES: Right.
WILLIAMS: So we said, well, let’s discuss this for a little bit. After discussing it for maybe three or four minutes, got to the end of the day. And about 20 minutes after the end of school, my principal came in and said, “What are you doing talking about God in the classroom?”
And I was kind of taken aback. And, as it turns out, a parent complained immediately after that.
About a month later — and again, this doesn’t come up that much in my classroom. I think some people think that I’m trying to put these things in or talk about this all the time. — This has happened a handful of times this whole year, is what precipitated, you know, into this event.
COLMES: But what about the Declaration of Independence? Did you bring that document in?
Does the school have a right — let me go to Mr. Lorence — does the school have a right to determine what documents can or cannot be utilized by a teacher in the classroom?
JORDAN LORENCE, ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND: Well, they can. And here, in this situation, they allow teachers like Mr. Williams to bring in supplemental materials. And there are state governmental teaching guidelines that say what the objectives are that they are supposed to teach. And the Declaration of Independence clearly falls within it. He was doing nothing wrong. There was no particular ban on this.
Now, I graduated from High School in 1980, but every school I attended, to the best of my knowledge, had a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States displayed prominently in or near the main office of the school.
Where else but in California does someone come up with the ludicrous idea that the Declaration of Independence is a religious document? A little further investigation and I determined that Mr. Williams was a teacher in Cupertino, a fundamentalist Christian who liked to draw attention (I believe the term is “witness”) to his faith in class. That’s a no-no. More power to him for having his faith, but he’s there to teach history not comparative religion, and he’s certainly not there to proselytize.
Williams sued the school district, but most of his suit was dismissed:
A federal judge dismissed most of a lawsuit filed against a South Bay school district by a teacher who claimed he was banned from using excerpts from the Declaration of Independence and other historical documents in his classroom because of their references to God and Christianity.
U.S. District Judge James Ware of San Jose on Thursday dismissed three of teacher Steven Williams’ claims that Cupertino Union School District representatives violated his free-speech rights; that the district’s policy on use of supplementary materials was vague; and that his right of religious expression had been violated. But one claim remains.
“In the surviving claim, the teacher alleges that all other teachers are allowed to use similar supplemental materials while he is being restricting from using them because he is an avowed Christian,” Ware wrote in his 17-page ruling. “If he can prove that claim, it would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
The district issued a news release indicating it will file a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of this remaining cause of action; Ware tentatively scheduled this motion to be heard in October.
Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek Elementary School in the Cupertino Union School District, sued in November, arguing a First Amendment right to teach the history of our country and its founding fathers, which includes religious, and specifically Christian, references.
The lawsuit claims principal Patricia Vidmar required Williams to submit his lesson plans and the supplemental handouts he planned to use in his classroom for review.
She then kept Williams from giving students handouts including excerpts from the Declaration of Independence with references to “God,” “Creator” and “Supreme Judge” and “George Washington’s Prayer Journal.”
(sic)and Samuel Adams’ “The Rights of the Colonists,” which includes passages excluding Roman Catholics from religious tolerance because of their “doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.”
In other words, this guy uses his classroom as a pulpit, and the reaction of the brain-dead administration is to prevent him from using historical documents?
Again, only in California.
They settled the lawsuit. (PDF file)
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think?
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Happy Independence Day.
Quote of the Day
Limbaugh’s audience is often underestimated by critics who don’t listen to the show (only 3 percent of his audience identity themselves as “liberal,” according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press). Recently, Pew reported that, on a series of “news knowledge questions,” Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” — the defiantly self-mocking term for his faithful, supposedly brainwashed, audience — scored higher than NPR listeners. The study found that “readers of newsmagazines, political magazines and business magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR and viewers of the Daily Show and C-SPAN are also much more likely than the average person to have a college degree.” – New York Times Magazine “Late-Period Limbaugh”
This is the piece in which it was announced that Limbaugh had signed up for another eight years with Clear Channel for a reported $400 million. Yes, friends, the Left is correct: the rich do keep getting richer.
One reason: they don’t ignore “flyover country.” Them ignorant rubes on the farm aren’t so ignorant nor such rubes, and we have money, too. It may surprise you to know, but Jeff “You Might Be a Redneck” Foxworthy is, I believe, the highest-earning comedian going. According to Forbes, his 11 comedy albums have sold 14 million copies – more than any other comedian including Bill Cosby; he earns up to $150k per stand-up show, his merchandise earns him $2.5 million a year. A quote from Foxworthy, while I’m at it:
I remember being in a meeting in L.A. and the guy had a turtle neck and his hair pulled back in a pony tail and three or four earrings and he had on a cashmere turtleneck and a blazer and he goes, “Jeff, I know your people.” And I’m looking at him: “My people would beat the hell out of you,” you know? But to me, it’s like between the two (Los Angeles and New York), there’s 200 million people and they would tell me, “Well, you`re not hip or you’re not on the cutting edge.” I’m like, “There’s 200 million people not hip and not on the cutting edge. You don’t get that.”
Not hip, not cutting edge, but not stupid either.
Limbaugh and Foxworthy are cashing on on the 200 million people who live in “flyover country,” even when that country is L.A. or N.Y.C.
And more power to them.
Except Obama wants to tax the hell out of them for making obscene profits.
I emailed GEErnst over at Potowmack.org last night:
It’s been almost a week. Surely you have SOMETHING to say?
Like “OUCH!”?
He replied:
The Potowmack Institute must have some people worried.
For good reason. Stay tuned.GEErnst
Yeah, I was worried that he’d gone off on a quaalude and Jägermeister bender.
I’m reminded of The Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when Arthur asks him, “What are you going to do, bleed on me?”
I’m trembling with anticipation, I assure you!
“Okay, we’ll call it a draw!”
Quote of the Day
People who smoke a gun barrel are pretty serious about checking out of the net, and if a gun isn’t available, they’re off to the nearest tall building or freight crossing. Look at the Land of the Rising Sun. The only guns over there fire plastic pellets, and that doesn’t stop them from whacking themselves with the same amount of industry and efficiency that they put into making Honda Accords. – Tam, Suicidal Stats.
Makes Sense to Me
I got this via email from my brother. It’s essentially a PSA, and it makes sense to me, so I’ll post it here:
Blood Clots/Stroke – They Now Have a Fourth Indicator, the Tongue.
STROKE:Remember
The 1st Three Letters….S.T.R.My nurse friend sent this and encouraged me to post it and spread the word. I agree.
If everyone can remember something this simple, we could save some folks.
Seriously..Please read:
STROKE IDENTIFICATION:
During a BBQ, a friend stumbled and took a little fall – she assured everyone that she was fine (they offered to call paramedics) … she said she had just tripped over a brick because of her new shoes.
They got her cleaned up and got her a new plate of food. While she appeared a bit shaken up, Ingrid went about enjoying herself the rest of the evening.
Ingrid’s husband called later telling everyone that his wife had been taken to the hospital-(at 6:00 p. m. Ingrid passed away.) She had suffered a stroke at the BBQ. Had they known how to identify the signs of a stroke, perhaps Ingrid would be with us today.
Some don’t die. They end up in a helpless, hopeless condition instead.
It only takes a minute to read this…
A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hour she can totally reverse the effects of a stroke ..totally.
He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours , which is tough.
RECOGNIZING A STROKE
Thank God for the sense to remember the ‘3’ steps, STR. Read and Learn!
Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke .
Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions:
S *Ask the individual to SMILE.
T *Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently)
(i.e. It is sunny out today)
R *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS.If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call 911 immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
New Sign of a Stroke ——– Stick out Your Tongue
NOTE: Another ‘sign’ of a stroke is this: Ask the person to ‘stick’ out his tongue… If the tongue is ‘crooked’, if it goes to one side or the other, that is also an indication of a stroke.
A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved.
This site gets a lot more than 10 hits a day, maybe this will do someone, somewhere some good.
UPDATE: Ambulance Driver comments:
A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hour she can totally reverse the effects of a stroke ..totally.
Not to hijack your comments for my personal tirade, but…
…Horse. Shit.
IF he can get clot-busting medication to a victim within 3 hours, and IF the stroke isn’t hemorrhagic in nature, and IF there isn’t some other contraindication to the medication, and IF the victim is taken to a dedicated stroke center…
THEN, the victim will usually have about a 30% reduction in the severity of symptoms, balanced against a 10% chance they will develop a life-threatening brain hemorrhage and die, or turn into a turnip at best.
That’s why quite a few ER physicians and neurologists still refuse to jump onto the clotbusters for stroke bandwagon – still too risky, for too little proven benefit. It’s a useful option, but nowhere near as rosy as this PSA paints it. The neurologist quoted is probably just a paid shill for Genentech pharmaceuticals. No one but a paid whore would make such broad statements.
Otherwise, it’s pretty much correct.
Thanks for the clarification, AD.
A Terrific Observation
Thirdpower over at Days of Our Trailers has a really good zinger of a comeback line I invite you to go read, but the thread from which that came has another comment I liked even better. It’s a statement of reality, one that makes people like GEErnst over at Potowmack.org dampen his Depends:
I am a gun owner from Belgium. Last summer I had to fire a warning shot to repel a gang of drug-addicts who had assaulted and wounded me. The whole story spans several weeks and is rather complicated (because of inept police and courts). Briefly put, cops stole my guns with the excuse that I shot one round into the air. Eradicate gun control in America so it can be destroyed elsewhere as well. America’s diplomatic, cultural and military influence has liberated many countries. Abolish gun control and jail the gun-grabbers for complicity in all the crimes they facilitated.
Marik, I know America is on the verge of civil war because I read Guns&Ammo every month from 1994 to 1999. This danger probably prompted the Supreme Court to acknowledge the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. You might be at war now had they ruled the opposite. Fully recover your gun rights, peacefully if possible. Then your example will inspire other countries to do the same.
If you don’t inspire other nations to give up gun control, they will degenerate into full-fledged dictatorships with war as the only option to regain freedom. You Americans might have to once again die to fight these foreign wars. The only safe way to prevent this is to destroy gun control in your land so that others will imitate you. – Ben
Can we get this guy a visa? I’ll sponsor him.
UPDATE, 7/5: GEErnst, in a fit of PSH (and apparently unable to use hyperlinks properly) indirectly links to this post in his July 5 update. He’s so concerned over the outcome of D.C. v. Heller he neglects to, you know, actually discuss the SUPREME COURT DECISION. Instead he concentrates on Silberman’s Parker decision and Kleinfeld’s dissent in the 9th Circuit’s Silveira denial to re-hear en banc. Firehand does a very good job of deconstructing GEErnst in his 4th of July post on the topic. I think his analysis goes double now that GEErnst has come out of hiding.
For the two of you (I don’t expect more) who click over here from Potowmack.org, here’s the deal:
The Supreme Court – all nine Justices – declared the right to arms to be an individual right. The five-Justice majority declared, in no uncertain terms, that it is a right to arms unconnected to militia service and it is a right to arms “of the kind in common use,” among which are handguns. GEErnst states “The gun rights crowd is getting worried. This isn’t what they thought and hoped for.” On the contrary. It’s really more than I had hoped for, though I had hoped for a 6-3 decision. Now we get to fight in the courts over incorporation, and then over just what is or isn’t “common use.” And a lot more. For a long time.
But we’ve settled once and for all whether the right protected is “collective” and predicated on membership in a militia or not, and that is making GEErnst dampen his Depends.
Yes, GEErnst, you’re right:“The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself.” Try to get your mind around that concept. It’s explicitly stated in the founding philosophical document of our nation – the Declaration of Independence – which we celebrated the signing of all day yesterday.
I look forward to your further updates. I want to watch you “bleed on me” some more!
THIS Guy has Testicular Fortitude
Forget the guy in the beach chair. I just received this via email:
Dear Friend of Gun Rights,
I wish I could rejoice in the recent Supreme Court ruling. I can’t.
The fact is, in many ways, it is bad news for gun owners and gun rights.
The Supreme Court’s Heller decision wasn’t even an hour old before anti-gun activists began revealing exactly what they had been plotting for months.
As Nancy Pelosi said regarding the Supreme Court’s decision, “they left a lot of room to run . . .”
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a member of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition, said the Supreme Court’s decision “is an explicit statement of support” for their gun control efforts.
My friend, we are about to see a tsunami of anti-gun activism.
That’s why it’s vital you act TODAY! Support us at http://www.nationalgunrights.org/heller.htm
You see, while the U.S. Supreme Court did strike down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban (and maybe Chicago’s) they gave the GREEN LIGHT to virtually every other anti-gun regulation, licensing scheme and restriction on the books.
Justice Scalia writing for the 5-4 majority said, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on [restricted persons] … or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in [restricted places] … or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
And it gets worse. And that’s only five of nine judges.
Don’t be misled. That’s what anti-gunners count on.
Even as I write you, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg and their anti-gun pals at the federal, state and local levels are preparing a torrent of new and sweeping gun control legislation.
So those who have been running around claiming the Supreme Court’s decision will ultimately lead to Second Amendment utopia are DEAD WRONG.
Among other things, all the following anti-gun laws are A-OK according to the Supreme Court:
*** Mandatory licensing to purchase firearms;
*** Bans on the open and concealed-carry of firearms;
*** Bans on private sales of firearms;
*** Bans of so-called assault weapons and other “unusual” weapons (that’s the actual language Scalia uses);
*** Bans on firearms on government property;
*** Bans on certain calibers of ammunition;
*** Bans on high-powered hunting scopes;
*** One-month waiting periods;
*** One-gun-a-month schemes;
*** Mandatory ammunition fingerprinting.
That’s why your help today is so vital.
You see, the gun-grabbers have been raising millions of dollars for months, hoping for a Court decision they could “work with.” And they got it.
While so many folks on our side are being distracted by a national press claiming “PRO-GUN FORCES WIN,” anti-gun forces are ready to use the Court’s decision to take even MORE Second Amendment freedoms away from you and me.
And with millionaire Hollywood honchos and billionaires like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on their side, I’m afraid they have all the money they need to do it, too.
And don’t think Bloomberg and his gun control pals will stop short of TOTAL gun bans!
By the time any newly-passed gun control scheme makes its way back to the Supreme Court, every current Justice could be retired or DEAD!
That’s why your help is needed IMMEDIATELY.
By turning up the heat on politicians now — especially in this critical election year — you and I will send the clear message to the politicians that they MUST oppose any new gun control scheme or pay the price at the polls.
That’s the only real way to get politicians to listen.
So please agree to act TODAY, visit our website at http://www.nationalgunrights.org/heller.htm
The National Association for Gun Rights is set to expand the following three-part program to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s decision:
>>> Phase 1 — Recruit 325,000 new National Association for Gun Rights members in key areas across the country that will be most vulnerable to the gun-grabbers’ schemes;
>>> Phase 2 — Work with pro-gun legislators and the media to put the anti-gunners on the defensive and expose their lies and manipulations;
>>> Phase 3 — Launch a full-scale direct mail, internet and phone blitz targeted at Second Amendment supporters in key areas to create a grassroots wildfire in favor of our full gun rights.
But none of this can happen without your financial support.
As I told you, the national gun control crowd has been raising millions and planning for this exact scenario for months.
They could launch a full-scale assault on our gun rights at the federal, state, and local level within just a few weeks.
What will stop them is the grassroots efforts of pro-gun folks like you — folks who realize the Supreme Court’s Heller decision does NOT stop gun control.
But this effort will not be cheap, and that’s why I must ask for your financial support, as well.
Will you agree to a special one-time contribution of $1,000?
Perhaps you can afford more.
Believe me, I know that’s a lot to ask, but I can hardly overestimate just how important this fight is.
If $1,000 is not possible, I hope you’ll agree to make a contribution of $500, $100 or at least $50.
Visit http://www.nationalgunrights.org/heller.htm TODAY and support our efforts.
The Supreme Court has ruled. Battle lines are being drawn.
The knock-down, drag-out, tooth-and-nail fights against the gun-grabbers begins immediately.
I hope I can count on you in our corner.
Your IMMEDIATE help is crucial. Please act TODAY! Go to http://www.nationalgunrights.org/heller.htm
Sincerely,
Dudley Brown
Executive DirectorP.S. While the U.S. Supreme Court did strike down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban, they gave a GREEN LIGHT to virtually every other gun control law imaginable. Too many pro-gun folks just don’t understand what is about to happen.
Emboldened by the Court’s decision blessing their efforts, gun control zealots like Michael Bloomberg and Nancy Pelosi are preparing to launch an all-out assault on our gun rights.
They are counting on us to go to sleep and not notice what happens. That is exactly what I and everyone else at your National Association for Gun Rights REFUSES to do.
So please help the National Association for Gun Rights fight back with a special, one-time contribution of $1,000 (or even more if you can afford it), $500, $100 or at least $50 — whatever you can afford –TODAY! Go to http://www.nationalgunrights.org/heller.htm
Wait, wait… I’m supposed to believe Dudley Brown over, oh, say David Hardy or Alan Korwin? Or my own reading of the decision?
Who the hell is The National Association for Gun Rights? Yes, the battle is not over, it’s just begun, but St. Peter on a pogo stick, some group I’ve never heard of begging for $1,000 because Heller didn’t go FAR enough?
Sorry, Dudley. My money will go where I think it will do the most good.
Quote of the Day – Just in Time for Summer!
