Fellow Marines Call On Kyle Carpenter to Receive The Medal of Honor for Using His Body to Shield Others from Grenade Blast
Semper Fidelis,
Brantigny
Monday, January 30, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
..Jon Stewart's Rare Show of Hypocrisy Lights Up Cable TV
..By Bob Bartelby
I am a huge fan of comedian Jon Stewart. I think he should run for president. He'd make a great one. That said, I am an equal opportunity commentator, and as such it would be unconscionable for me to allow Stewart a free pass after Tuesday evening's blatant hypocrisy regarding former Massachusetts governor and likely also-ran Mitt Romney.
According to the Huffington Post, Stewart blasted Romney, (who according to CBC earned $21.7 million in 2010) for his earnings and his low tax rate. "How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year -- while paying the same tax rate as the guy who scans shoes at the airport?" asked Stewart. Romney's effective earnings, all from investments, as he is per his own words according to the New York Times, unemployed work out to about $57,000 per day in fiscal year 2010.
Here's the problem: According to celebritynetworth.com, Stewart earns $15 million per year as his salary on "The Daily Show." We can assume, because that is a job, he pays closer to the 30 percent rate than Romney's 13.9 percent.
However, that's only part of the picture. Stewart is also estimated to have a net worth of $80 million. Depending on how he is invested, he is also earning a substantial income from his $80 million nest egg. Even if he is invested conservatively, he's likely earning investment income of $4 million per year, which would be taxed at a rate equal to Romney's. Indeed, between investment income and book royalties, and his salary, more than likely Stewart earns more money in the fiscal year than Romney despite paying a marginally higher tax rate.
Stewart goes on to blast Romney for having lobbied against tax reform that would have been detrimental to his personal holdings, but the fact is Stewart benefits from the tax laws too, and as such should have disclosed the same.
Of course, rich men don't want to pay more taxes than they currently do. But what I can't figure out is why anyone thinks the rich man should like taxation any more than the poor man does. That's just insane. I love "The Daily Show" and its contribution to the national dialog, but that bit was just plain hypocritical. Come on, Jon. You're better than that...
Well Jon what cha got to say?
Liberalism is a disease.
Brantigny
I am a huge fan of comedian Jon Stewart. I think he should run for president. He'd make a great one. That said, I am an equal opportunity commentator, and as such it would be unconscionable for me to allow Stewart a free pass after Tuesday evening's blatant hypocrisy regarding former Massachusetts governor and likely also-ran Mitt Romney.
According to the Huffington Post, Stewart blasted Romney, (who according to CBC earned $21.7 million in 2010) for his earnings and his low tax rate. "How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year -- while paying the same tax rate as the guy who scans shoes at the airport?" asked Stewart. Romney's effective earnings, all from investments, as he is per his own words according to the New York Times, unemployed work out to about $57,000 per day in fiscal year 2010.
Here's the problem: According to celebritynetworth.com, Stewart earns $15 million per year as his salary on "The Daily Show." We can assume, because that is a job, he pays closer to the 30 percent rate than Romney's 13.9 percent.
However, that's only part of the picture. Stewart is also estimated to have a net worth of $80 million. Depending on how he is invested, he is also earning a substantial income from his $80 million nest egg. Even if he is invested conservatively, he's likely earning investment income of $4 million per year, which would be taxed at a rate equal to Romney's. Indeed, between investment income and book royalties, and his salary, more than likely Stewart earns more money in the fiscal year than Romney despite paying a marginally higher tax rate.
Stewart goes on to blast Romney for having lobbied against tax reform that would have been detrimental to his personal holdings, but the fact is Stewart benefits from the tax laws too, and as such should have disclosed the same.
Of course, rich men don't want to pay more taxes than they currently do. But what I can't figure out is why anyone thinks the rich man should like taxation any more than the poor man does. That's just insane. I love "The Daily Show" and its contribution to the national dialog, but that bit was just plain hypocritical. Come on, Jon. You're better than that...
Well Jon what cha got to say?
Liberalism is a disease.
Brantigny
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
..Court: Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban
DENVER (Reuters) - A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against a voter-approved ban on Islamic law in Oklahoma on Tuesday, saying it likely violated the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against religion.
A three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the rights of plaintiff Muneer Awad, a Muslim man living in Oklahoma City, likely would be violated if the ban on Sharia law takes effect.
The decision upholds the ruling of a lower federal court.
"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision.
The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed the ruling, calling it "a victory for the Constitution and for the right of all Americans to freely practice their faith."
Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law.
The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Awad, who is director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR.
A federal judge in Oklahoma City issued a court order in November 2010 barring the measure from taking effect while the case is under review, finding a substantial likelihood that Awad would prevail on the merits.
The Council said the Oklahoma amendment is among 20 similar proposed laws introduced in state legislatures nationwide.
Defenders of the amendment say they want to prevent foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.
But foes of the Oklahoma measure, also called State Question 755, have argued that it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another.
State Senator Anthony Sykes, one of the measure's sponsors, called the decision an attempt "to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people."
Opponents also say it could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims because they incorporate by reference specific elements of Islamic prophetic traditions.
Well as long as Muslims aren't offended...
this appeals court is made up of appointed judges, not elected ones. Therefore they do not have to bend to the will of the people. When foreign law overrules US and state law sovereignty ends.
Brantigny
A three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the rights of plaintiff Muneer Awad, a Muslim man living in Oklahoma City, likely would be violated if the ban on Sharia law takes effect.
The decision upholds the ruling of a lower federal court.
"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision.
The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed the ruling, calling it "a victory for the Constitution and for the right of all Americans to freely practice their faith."
Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law.
The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Awad, who is director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR.
A federal judge in Oklahoma City issued a court order in November 2010 barring the measure from taking effect while the case is under review, finding a substantial likelihood that Awad would prevail on the merits.
The Council said the Oklahoma amendment is among 20 similar proposed laws introduced in state legislatures nationwide.
Defenders of the amendment say they want to prevent foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.
But foes of the Oklahoma measure, also called State Question 755, have argued that it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another.
State Senator Anthony Sykes, one of the measure's sponsors, called the decision an attempt "to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people."
Opponents also say it could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims because they incorporate by reference specific elements of Islamic prophetic traditions.
Well as long as Muslims aren't offended...
this appeals court is made up of appointed judges, not elected ones. Therefore they do not have to bend to the will of the people. When foreign law overrules US and state law sovereignty ends.
Brantigny
Thursday, January 5, 2012
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who were directly responsible for the Wall Street meltdown.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHAT ARE THEY DOING NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES?Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor!
TIM HOWARD?Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines!!
JIM JOHNSON?Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. (I guess that means biden is retiring to Delaware...)
Kinda makes you sick to your stomach. Kinda like letting the Fox into the hen house and holding the door open for them.
You choose the company you keep and you are known by that company. The list of malefactors in the Obama admisinstration is growing by leaps and bounds.
Brantigny
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHAT ARE THEY DOING NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES?Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor!
TIM HOWARD?Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines!!
JIM JOHNSON?Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. (I guess that means biden is retiring to Delaware...)
Kinda makes you sick to your stomach. Kinda like letting the Fox into the hen house and holding the door open for them.
You choose the company you keep and you are known by that company. The list of malefactors in the Obama admisinstration is growing by leaps and bounds.
Brantigny
Monday, December 12, 2011
Senate legalizes bestiality in the Armed Forces
This had to come. Once the procription against Homosexuals serving in the Military was overturned by a pagan Senate and signed into law by an equally pagan president those portions of military law which outlawed sodomy and bestiality had to go as well. Unfortunately for the nbaby genuises the left in the General Article 134. which reads: "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court." So this would have to be the charge used for inapproprate sex between and adult and a minor. Enlistment is open to youths at age 17.
Three conservative Senate Republicans – Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) – joined Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in voting “NO” on the bill. However don't get so ready to congratulate them for a moral desision. Their not voting for had morre to do with self promotio rather than the Glory of God. none of them spoke out in Senate debate against the sodomy/bestiality provision leading up to the vote. And none said they voted against the bill because of the provision.
“Dr. Coburn voted against the bill because it didn't do enough to fix the long term challenges at the Pentagon,” a Coburn spokesman told
CNSNews.com asked McCain: “Senator, did you read the Defense authorization bill that was passed last week? Were you aware of the language that repealed the ban on sodomy and bestiality?” “On what?” McCain replied.
A spokesman for Lee, meanwhile, said that the senator does not support doing away with the Article 125 law on sodomy and bestiality, but his vote was prompted by concerns over the fact that the bill allows U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism to be detained in the U.S. by the military for an indefinite period.
In fact, only one member of Congress spoke out against the provision last Thursday night – and he was in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) took to the House floor to condemn the provision just as the Senate was voting.
“If the Senate language passes the House, they’ve stricken the language that prohibits bestiality in the military in their overzealous effort to try to advance same-sex marriage among our military and use it as a social experiment,” King said for the Congressional Record.
The Associated Press (via the Boston Globe) is reporting that the Democratic-controlled US Senate has passed the $662 billion 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
The NDAA covers everything from jet strike fighters to housing for military families.
It also de-criminalizes both sodomy and bestiality.
In a press release from the US Senate Committee on the Armed Services (Chairman - Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI) from June 17, 2011, under the Military Personnel Policy section (page 9), it clearly states that the Committee has added to the Fiscal Year 2012 NDAA the following;
Also repeals Article 125 of the UCMJ, relating to the offense of sodomy.
The Library of Congress has recorded and saved for posterity every letter and number associated Senate bill, S. 1867. Specifically;
S.1867National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Sec. 920c. Art. 120c. Other sexual misconduct
(d) Repeal of Sodomy Article- Section 925 of such title (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is repealed.
On an official US Air Force website, Article 125 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) formerly prohibited both sodomy and bestiality.
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
The official website for the US Senate has listed by name the 93-7 vote in favor of the NDAA.
Rome at its end could not have thought up a better way to bring about it's downfall.
Brantigny
Three conservative Senate Republicans – Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) – joined Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in voting “NO” on the bill. However don't get so ready to congratulate them for a moral desision. Their not voting for had morre to do with self promotio rather than the Glory of God. none of them spoke out in Senate debate against the sodomy/bestiality provision leading up to the vote. And none said they voted against the bill because of the provision.
“Dr. Coburn voted against the bill because it didn't do enough to fix the long term challenges at the Pentagon,” a Coburn spokesman told
CNSNews.com asked McCain: “Senator, did you read the Defense authorization bill that was passed last week? Were you aware of the language that repealed the ban on sodomy and bestiality?” “On what?” McCain replied.A spokesman for Lee, meanwhile, said that the senator does not support doing away with the Article 125 law on sodomy and bestiality, but his vote was prompted by concerns over the fact that the bill allows U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism to be detained in the U.S. by the military for an indefinite period.
In fact, only one member of Congress spoke out against the provision last Thursday night – and he was in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) took to the House floor to condemn the provision just as the Senate was voting.
“If the Senate language passes the House, they’ve stricken the language that prohibits bestiality in the military in their overzealous effort to try to advance same-sex marriage among our military and use it as a social experiment,” King said for the Congressional Record.
The Associated Press (via the Boston Globe) is reporting that the Democratic-controlled US Senate has passed the $662 billion 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
The NDAA covers everything from jet strike fighters to housing for military families.
It also de-criminalizes both sodomy and bestiality.
In a press release from the US Senate Committee on the Armed Services (Chairman - Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI) from June 17, 2011, under the Military Personnel Policy section (page 9), it clearly states that the Committee has added to the Fiscal Year 2012 NDAA the following;
Also repeals Article 125 of the UCMJ, relating to the offense of sodomy.
The Library of Congress has recorded and saved for posterity every letter and number associated Senate bill, S. 1867. Specifically;
S.1867National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Sec. 920c. Art. 120c. Other sexual misconduct
(d) Repeal of Sodomy Article- Section 925 of such title (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is repealed.
On an official US Air Force website, Article 125 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) formerly prohibited both sodomy and bestiality.
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
The official website for the US Senate has listed by name the 93-7 vote in favor of the NDAA.
Rome at its end could not have thought up a better way to bring about it's downfall.
Brantigny
Friday, December 2, 2011
Saudi Arabia and the woman driver.
In a country known for Washington politicians making the most obtuse connexions and repeating these "observations' as truth (see latest Bidenism), Saudi Arabia has raised the bar on stupid...
Here is the report by Muslim Clerics...
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 2 (UPI) -- If women were allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, sex and pornography would surge and homosexuality would be more prevalent, conservative Muslim scholars said.
So sex, pornography and homosexuality are pervasive in Saudi Arabia.
Academics at the Majlis al-Ifta al-Aala, the country's top religious council, said relaxing the rules concerning women drivers would eventually lead to "no more virgins," The Daily Telegraph reported Friday.
Huh? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The lack of virgins is possible because the virgins would escape to Bahrain and hence to the west.
The scholars, working with a former professor at the conservative King Fahd University, presented their conclusions in a report to the country's legislative assembly.
The report said allowing women to drive would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."
Saudi Arabia is the only country that bans women from driving. Women caught driving can be lashed.
In September, Shaima Jastaniya was sentenced to 10 lashes after she was caught driving in Jeddah. International outrage about the sentence prompted King Abdallah to overturn it.
Despite criticism about the law by rights organizations and other leaders, resistance to reform is strong within the conservative royal family and among clerics.
The Saudi government is considering a proposal to ban women from displaying their eyes if they are deemed too "tempting," the Telegraph reported. Women already must cover most of their bodies in public.
Incidentally having been to that area of the world I have to say that Saudi women go to Bahrain to drive. Even in Muslim countries who have Shariah women are allowed to drive.
No word from the Administration how this will affect the economy, but that statement will be forthcoming.
Please step to the back of the car please.
Brantigny
Here is the report by Muslim Clerics...
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 2 (UPI) -- If women were allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, sex and pornography would surge and homosexuality would be more prevalent, conservative Muslim scholars said. So sex, pornography and homosexuality are pervasive in Saudi Arabia.
Academics at the Majlis al-Ifta al-Aala, the country's top religious council, said relaxing the rules concerning women drivers would eventually lead to "no more virgins," The Daily Telegraph reported Friday.
Huh? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The lack of virgins is possible because the virgins would escape to Bahrain and hence to the west.
The scholars, working with a former professor at the conservative King Fahd University, presented their conclusions in a report to the country's legislative assembly.
The report said allowing women to drive would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."
Saudi Arabia is the only country that bans women from driving. Women caught driving can be lashed.
In September, Shaima Jastaniya was sentenced to 10 lashes after she was caught driving in Jeddah. International outrage about the sentence prompted King Abdallah to overturn it.
Despite criticism about the law by rights organizations and other leaders, resistance to reform is strong within the conservative royal family and among clerics.
The Saudi government is considering a proposal to ban women from displaying their eyes if they are deemed too "tempting," the Telegraph reported. Women already must cover most of their bodies in public.
Incidentally having been to that area of the world I have to say that Saudi women go to Bahrain to drive. Even in Muslim countries who have Shariah women are allowed to drive.
No word from the Administration how this will affect the economy, but that statement will be forthcoming.
Please step to the back of the car please.Brantigny
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)