About Me

Name: The New THOMA$...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

UN: Censorship King

"When the United Nations insists that man-made global warming is now proved beyond doubt [wrong! -RT], it's practicing one of the few things it has proved itself good at: censorship of dissenting viewpoints." It certainly isn’t any good for anything else, certainly not in “keeping peace” in the world. It has obviously “bought” AlGore’s swindle about global warming and is trying to eliminate ANY opposition. It has figured out, rightly so, that global warming is the way to a LOT of money for the dictators running things there and they’re “running with it.” (IBD Editorials)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Finally Gave Their Guns Back

New Orleans finally gave back the guns they stole under the cover of "cleaning up" after the hurricane. But they didn't do it on their own. They fought "tooth and nail" for THREE YEARS when the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association sued them. They shouldn't have had to file this suit in the first place, to force New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to follow the Constitution and allow his citizens to defend themselves against the ILLEGALLY armed criminals who don't OBEY laws. The "anti-gunners," including Nagin, are doing everything in their power to DISARM honest Americans and make of them "easy targets" for criminals. What makes them think a CRIMINAL, who doesn't OBEY laws, will not be armed if they make a law against it, I don't know. All I know is, like the Chinese and Japanese in history, we must find a way to "get around" their asinine anti-gun laws. The Orientals came up with "unarmed combat." The government couldn't stop them from having their arms, legs, feet, and other effective weapons. Can we find as effective a counter for the laws our liberals make to keep us disarmed and "easy pickins" for criminals (some of whom even wear badges)? (Common Sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Voter Intent?"

That’s what they’re trying to use in Minnesota, where funnyman Al Franken is trying to steal the senator’s seat from the incumbent, Norm Coleman, by having the electors count “voter intent” as a vote. Excuse me, but that requires a SUBJECTIVE decision on the part of the elections commission (way too much power), most of which is Democrat. “Voter intent” is NOT a vote. They’ve tried this before and it didn’t work then; it should not work now, whoever wins. Hugh Hewitt says, "The recount in Minnesota still shows Norm Coleman in the lead, but with one more day of interpreting voter intent to go, the lead is down to two votes.  All eyes will be on the live feed provided by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and hosted by our friend and colleague James Lileks. One vote is all that's necessary to win, but it sure would be nice to have a few extra votes to spare." VOTES, not “voter intent.” (Hugh Hewitt)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Protecting Islam and No One Else

"The United Nations General Assembly is considering passage of a resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religion.' Angela Wu of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty notes the resolution mentions only the protection of Islam -- and that is one of several concerns for her. 'Because it's protecting defamation against religion -- an idea -- rather than defamation against a person, it essentially controls what people can say about religion, which we think is ultimately quite dangerous to have the state moderate what people can and can't peacefully say about religious ideas,' she contends." This is becoming a trend; organizations and governments making provisions to "protect" Islam to the exclusion of all other religions. Now I have nothing against ANY religion. But I think ANY organization, even a completely ineffective one such as the United Nations, should make their "resolutions" apply to ALL religions if they take the trouble to make them. The UN has a bad tendency to "bend over and grab the ankles" for Islam these days, mostly because it is run by, and FOR dictatorships (some of them Islamic) all over the world. What they think they're gaining by making ANY "resolutions" like this I don't know. They have NO actual authority, anywhere that is not GIVEN them by their signatory countries. I certainly will not abide by ANY "resolution" they make. I am protected by the Constitution of the United States (so far). I will say what I think until someone puts me in prison for my words. That's what will be necessary to shut me up. (One News Now)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Are They Going to Kill Him?

Iraq's "Chemical Ali" has (again) been sentenced to death for his part in the brutal repression of the 1991 Shiite uprising in Southern Iraq. Okay. Can we kill him now? Or are we going to charge him separately for each and every crime he ever committed and try him for them? Maybe then we can schedule his execution some time before he dies of old age (If we're lucky). To hell with all the "legal wrangling." Just kill him. His victims didn't get the benefit of any "legal wrangling? Why not make a special law for people like him and his cousin Saddam allowing them to execute him quickly? How were they able to execute Saddam so soon and not this turkey? Does he have better lawyers than Saddam did? Sheesh! (Yahoo News/AP)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill of Rights Anniversary

It has been 217 years since the bill of rights was adopted for the Constitution of the United States of America (Dec. 15, 1791). But don’t expect the liberal media to make a big thing of it. They’d like to see it gotten rid of (except for the First Amendment, of course, you know, the one that allows them to lie to their readers with impunity). Without those amendments, the Constitution probably would not have been ratified. But liberals don’t want you to know about that. They want you to believe the Constitution is a “flexible document” they can change at will, even though the Constitution itself lays down solid ground rules on how it can be changed. (Paul Jacob/Town Hall)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global "Warming?"

AlGore continues to say the “globe is warming” in spite of objective (unassailable) evidence to the contrary. To get around the record low temperatures across the nation, he says, “extremes of warm OR cold temperatures are both evidence of global warming.” How stupid does he think we are? Polar bears (whose numbers are higher than ever) are being put on the endangered list because “their numbers MIGHT go down soon because of global warming.” It's snowing in Arizona! How much further can AlGore push this swindle before people who aren’t as gullible as those who have “bought” his scam find him out? People who SHOULD know better, but who don’t. (Yahoo News/AP)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama/Blago's Mentor

The liberal press is trying mightily to debunk any suggestion of a connection between Illinois Governor Blagojevich and President-Elect Barack Obama. Unfortunately, both of these “Chicago cesspool politicians” had the same mentor, slum lord felon Tony Rezko. Tony helped both rise in Illinois politics. Obama himself has credited Rezko with helping bolster his political career. Rezko has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for both. Rezko was Obama’s second largest contributor when he ran for the U. S. Senate in 2003 and 2004. His wife helped  Obama buy “add-on” property to a home Rezko helped him buy. And Obama says he “barely knows” Rezko OR Blago? Come on! I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday! I don’t think you did, either. (News Max)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Get Rid of CRA!

Why is this dangerous law (The "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) that is at the bottom of ALL our financial problems still on the books? Because the Democrats, who passed it specifically to be able to "take over the government" and were successful, want it to remain, regardless of the fact that it is like a cancer to our financial well-being. That, and the prohibition on domestic oil drilling that caused gas prices to go up to $5 a gallon. They were forced to get rid of that prohibition for a while, but now they're trying to get it reapplied. Democrats SAY they want to "improve" the economy. Why then, does everything they do HURT it? (One News Now)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Penalizing CEOs

Obama and his accomplices want to punish the very people responsible for the profit that makes this world go around. As with most liberal (Democrat) policies, this policy is full of contradictions  (such as "defending ourselves" against illegally armed criminals by DISARMING ourselves while the criminals, who don't obey laws, never have a problem getting guns). Obama wants to raise taxes on people who are rich by dint of making others rich or creating jobs for them, just because they have more money than most and the "leeches" on society want some of it without EARNING it. One CEO promises to work for $1 a year if his company gets a government bailout. But I'll guarantee you that he'll be getting some "bonuses" along with it. CEOs don't work without getting paid in some fashion, even if they find it necessary to make it look like it in a world where a radical socialist president insists on PUNISHING the very people who make this economy work. (Yahoo News/AP)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Still Trying to Blame Bush

It's transparently evident that their own laws and policies (enforced by Clinton and Janet Reno) that FORCED lenders to lend money they KNEW could never be repaid, coupled with a promise that Fannie or Freddie would "bail them out" by buying the paper, then "pulling the plug" on Fannie and Freddie, CAUSING a "financial meltdown" just before the election. This created a "bloodless coup" by the Democrats, who are now in the (almost filibuster-proof) majority, and have a Democrat president. Which means they can do just about anything they want, including moving us much more quickly toward complete socialism--and if you don't know what socialism is, you'd better find out, and quick. (IBD Editorials)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Multiple Computer Failures

I’ve spent most of last week dealing with three computer failures. My main (and oldest) computer died; then the backup computer died. Then I bought another one and IT died. They had to wipe my hard drive (which had nothing much on it) and put in a new operating system. I spent most of the day today uploading software. I hope everything works right. I WAS able to post a couple of times over the weekend by using my son's computer.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wrong About Wright

 In a letter to the editor of Townhall Magazine, a proud black (conservative) reader told of hearing his father, who is, by all accounts, a fine man, say that Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke the truth about America. This man, a preacher (and Doctor of Divinity) in his own right, does not echo Wright’s rhetoric, nor does he preach it from the pulpit. But he is speaking from the memories of his own past, where one time whites wanted to hang him just for stepping off a ship when he was in the Navy. Apparently he forgets that it was his white buddies who saved him. Many older blacks (I do NOT call them “African-Americans”) remember such things and forget how many advances we’ve made in race relations since then. Back then, there were NO black elected officials, especially in the South. It was a “crime” just to be black. Now there are countless black elected officials all over the country, both in local governments and in the federal government. The office of Secretary of State has been held by blacks the last two times, and we have a black man on the Supreme Court now, in spite of all the vehement opposition of the Democrats (who lied about him with the willing Assistance of a female professor, herself black). They didn’t like him because he is a conservative. Blacks have permeated the political scene, and we even have a black president now (although he nominated a white woman to replace the black Secretary of State). Today’s blacks need to bring their thinking up to the twenty-first century where, while SOME racial hatred DOES still exist, it is no longer “the law of the land,” as it once was. They need to realize they no longer have a “white foot” on their necks and quit using that as an excuse for not succeeding in their own right. Yes, there ARE a few business owners who still “hate.” But the good thing today is they need to hide it. I realize too, that not all blacks use this as an excuse, but there are many. The ones who use it as an excuse will call me “racist” for this post, but they will be wrong. I judge people as INDIVIDUALS. Not by the color of their skin or sex, or by any other false standard. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS Obama A Citizen?

The liberals (and some conservatives) are scoffing at those who want to force Obama to prove his citizenship. But why is he refusing to show his birth certificate? Seems to me a birth certificate is public record and we don't NEED his approval to view it. What is he afraid of? Seems to me he could make this question "go away" quickly without having to fight a lawsuit, simply by SHOWING his birth certificate. I have had to show mine for many things a lot less important than proving I have met the requirements for being president. I think he should just SHOW it, and get it done with. Showing it should be a REQUIREMENT, since citizenship is a requirement, to prove it. Apparently he disagrees. Why? (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stealth Jihad

This is something I recognized happening a long time ago. But now Robert Spencer has written a book detailing it. I've seen Muslims going to court and WINNING where thay should have lost, due to the "intimidation of the lawsuit." If this trend continues, they will have "taken us over" without firing a shot. The so-called "war against terrorism" notwithstanding. While we keep their murderous terrorists at bay with guns and bullets elsewhere, they're slowly, but surely insinuating themselves into our very core. And we're cooperating to avoid being sued. Let them sue me. They'll meet a stone wall if they do.(Freedom Center)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive