Sunday, March 11, 2012
When Even Casual Sex Requires a State Welfare Program, You’re Pretty Much Done For
The Fluke CharadeWhy should we have to fund a middle-aged schoolgirl’s sex life?By Mark SteynI’m writing this from Australia, so, if I’m not quite up to speed on recent events in the United States, bear with me — the telegraph updates are a bit slow here in the bush. As I understand it, Sandra Fluke is a young coed who attends Georgetown Law, and recently testified before Congress. Oh, wait, no. Update: It wasn’t a congressional hearing; the Democrats just got it up to look like one, like summer stock, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing the show right here in the barn, and providing a cardboard set for the world premiere of Miss Fluke Goes to Washington, with full supporting cast led by Chuck Schumer strolling in through the French windows in tennis whites and drawling, “Anyone for bull****?”Oh, and the “young coed” turns out to be 30, which is what less evolved cultures refer to as early middle age. She’s a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked, but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity. She’s had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else (and this is where one is obliged to tiptoe cautiously, lest offense is given to gallant defenders of the good name of American maidenhood such as the many prestigious soon-to-be-former sponsors of this column who’ve booked Bill Maher for their corporate retreat with his amusing “Sarah Palin is a c***” routine . . . ) Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-aged schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex lifeRead more: http://nation.foxnews.com/sandra-fluke/2012/03/11/when-even-casual-sex-requires-state-welfare-program-you-re-pretty-much-done#ixzz1oqw4OaZA
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
It's times like this that make a Dad want to cry...
..Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam in Iran
Sean Stone, son of Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone, converted to Islam on Tuesday in Iran, where he is making a documentary, he told AFP.
"The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, which I was born with. It means I have accepted Mohammad and other prophets," he said in a brief telephone call from the central Iranian city of Isfahan, where he underwent the ceremony.
Sean Stone's famous father is Jewish, while his mother is Christian.
The 27-year-old filmmaker did not say why he converted.
According to Iran's Fars news agency, Sean Stone had become a Shiite and had chosen to be known by the Muslim first name Ali.
Sean/Ali Stone has acted in minor roles in several of his father's films, and has directed a handful of documentaries.
He evidently wasn't raised in the tenants of Chrisitanity or Judaism.
Brantigny
Sean Stone, son of Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone, converted to Islam on Tuesday in Iran, where he is making a documentary, he told AFP.
"The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, which I was born with. It means I have accepted Mohammad and other prophets," he said in a brief telephone call from the central Iranian city of Isfahan, where he underwent the ceremony.
Sean Stone's famous father is Jewish, while his mother is Christian.
The 27-year-old filmmaker did not say why he converted.
According to Iran's Fars news agency, Sean Stone had become a Shiite and had chosen to be known by the Muslim first name Ali.
Sean/Ali Stone has acted in minor roles in several of his father's films, and has directed a handful of documentaries.
He evidently wasn't raised in the tenants of Chrisitanity or Judaism.
Brantigny
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Political Correctness and Muslims
Bill O'Reilly
Feb 04, 2012
The story is grisly: a husband and wife murdering their three young daughters, ages 19, 17 and 13, by drowning them along with their stepmother. The couple was assisted by their 21-year-old son. All were found guilty of first-degree murder in Ontario, Canada. They were sentenced to life in prison.
Mohammad Shafia and his wife, Tooba, immigrated to Canada from Afghanistan in 2007. Being Muslims, they believe in Sharia law, which in some cases allows so-called "honor killings" -- that is, if a family member deviates from strict Muslim teachings, other family members can execute them. Of course, that's insane. But under the Taliban in Afghanistan and in some other parts of the world, "honor killings" are allowed.
In his eyes, Shafia's three daughters were guilty of becoming westernized, wearing nontraditional Muslim clothing and associating with the dreaded Christians. So this demented father ordered the girls killed, as well as his first wife, whom he believed was aiding them in their alleged transgressions.
Reporting on the story in America has been scant and strange. According to the Media Research Center, the initial Associated Press report made no mention of the fact that the convicted murderers are Muslim. They were described as "Afghan." In fact, the only theology mentioned in the AP dispatch is Christianity, used while describing the boyfriend of one of the daughters.
On NBC's "Nightly News," anchor Brian Williams said this: "A verdict has been reached in a murder case that's gotten a lot of attention because it involved so-called honor killings of family members. In this case, an Afghan family living in Canada. It is a culture clash getting a lot of attention to our north."
Culture clash? Between whom? Afghans and Canadians? What is Williams talking about?
The reporter on the story, Kevin Tibbles, also avoided using the word "Muslim." He described the motivation for the violence as "a strict religious family that felt it had been disgraced."
What religion? Incredibly, the reporter didn't say.
This is no coincidence. The politically correct U.S. media are frightened by Muslim violence. They avoid the issue whenever they can.
Just think about what would happen if a Catholic father murdered his daughter for having an abortion. Would the AP and NBC News not have mentioned the religion involved? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Political correctness is dangerous because it obscures the truth. It allows certain people and groups to avoid scrutiny for destructive actions. Today, the press in America is dominated by liberal editors who believe they are protecting "minorities" by failing to mention facts that might cast them in a negative light. Thus, honest reporting is becoming almost obsolete when certain groups are involved.
Shafia, his wife and his son are Muslim fanatics who believe they have the right to commit murder in the name of their religion. Somebody get that dispatch to the media.
If he had been a Catholic, the reporter would not have missed it.
Brantigny
Feb 04, 2012
The story is grisly: a husband and wife murdering their three young daughters, ages 19, 17 and 13, by drowning them along with their stepmother. The couple was assisted by their 21-year-old son. All were found guilty of first-degree murder in Ontario, Canada. They were sentenced to life in prison.
Mohammad Shafia and his wife, Tooba, immigrated to Canada from Afghanistan in 2007. Being Muslims, they believe in Sharia law, which in some cases allows so-called "honor killings" -- that is, if a family member deviates from strict Muslim teachings, other family members can execute them. Of course, that's insane. But under the Taliban in Afghanistan and in some other parts of the world, "honor killings" are allowed.
In his eyes, Shafia's three daughters were guilty of becoming westernized, wearing nontraditional Muslim clothing and associating with the dreaded Christians. So this demented father ordered the girls killed, as well as his first wife, whom he believed was aiding them in their alleged transgressions.
Reporting on the story in America has been scant and strange. According to the Media Research Center, the initial Associated Press report made no mention of the fact that the convicted murderers are Muslim. They were described as "Afghan." In fact, the only theology mentioned in the AP dispatch is Christianity, used while describing the boyfriend of one of the daughters.
On NBC's "Nightly News," anchor Brian Williams said this: "A verdict has been reached in a murder case that's gotten a lot of attention because it involved so-called honor killings of family members. In this case, an Afghan family living in Canada. It is a culture clash getting a lot of attention to our north."
Culture clash? Between whom? Afghans and Canadians? What is Williams talking about?
The reporter on the story, Kevin Tibbles, also avoided using the word "Muslim." He described the motivation for the violence as "a strict religious family that felt it had been disgraced."
What religion? Incredibly, the reporter didn't say.
This is no coincidence. The politically correct U.S. media are frightened by Muslim violence. They avoid the issue whenever they can.
Just think about what would happen if a Catholic father murdered his daughter for having an abortion. Would the AP and NBC News not have mentioned the religion involved? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Political correctness is dangerous because it obscures the truth. It allows certain people and groups to avoid scrutiny for destructive actions. Today, the press in America is dominated by liberal editors who believe they are protecting "minorities" by failing to mention facts that might cast them in a negative light. Thus, honest reporting is becoming almost obsolete when certain groups are involved.
Shafia, his wife and his son are Muslim fanatics who believe they have the right to commit murder in the name of their religion. Somebody get that dispatch to the media.
If he had been a Catholic, the reporter would not have missed it.
Brantigny
Court: CA gay marriage ban is unconstitutional
In another not so suprising court ruling in the 9th Circus Court the marriage ban in California (also known as Proposition 8,) has been overturned allowing for a final appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S.California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.
This too is a salvo fired at not only the voters in California, but also at the Church.
If this ruling stands, will next the Catholic Churches be sued for not performing same sex marriage?
What is next, overturning a ban on different species marriage?
Brantigny
Monday, January 30, 2012
No greater love...
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
Semper Fidelis,
Brantigny
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)