Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

November 8, 2009

Taking Dining and Dashing to All Time Low

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom — nhiemstra @ 1:42 pm

A Detroit-area man is facing five years in jail after leaving his date in a restaurant and driving off in her car without paying the bill.

According to news reports, Terrance Dejuan McCoy was on a first date with a woman when he told her he left his wallet in her car and needed the keys to get it to pay the bill.  He then sped off in the 2000 Chevrolet Impala.  The woman admitted she did not have much information about her date other than that she met him at a Detroit casino and he told her his name was “Chris.”  Police used a cell phone message McCoy sent to her, which included his photo and cell number, to track him down.

McCoy pleaded no contest to the charges.  His defense attorney, Terri Antisdale, says McCoy is a “very nice man who made a bad decision.”

—Source:  The Detroit News

On the 2009 Elections and the GOP

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom — nhiemstra @ 1:38 pm

“Tuesday’s election results should make clear to Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress that they seriously misinterpreted what voters were saying in 2006 and 2008. In 2006, angry voters turned out a Republican majority that for more than a decade had promised one thing but delivered something else. Then in 2008, voters took Obama at his word that he was a centrist and they closed the book on racism in American history by making him the nation’s first black president . . .

“But Republicans will go far amiss if they conclude simply saying no to Obama and the Democrats is their ticket back to power. Voters want leaders they can trust because they do what they promise. Everything else is secondary” —The Editors, The (Washington D.C.) Examiner

Regarding the Shooting Rampage at Ft. Hood

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom — nhiemstra @ 1:32 pm

“Whether it was directed from a foreign or domestic source, it is still an act of terror.” —Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee Ranking Member

Regarding Yesterday’s Scheduled Vote on the House Health Care

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom — nhiemstra @ 1:22 pm

“There will be one bipartisan vote today, and that is against Speaker Pelosi’s overhaul of health care. There will not be a bipartisan vote for this bill.” —House Republican Whip Eric Cantor

How Much Exactly Is a Billion Trillion Dollars?

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom, Legal Tales — nhiemstra @ 1:04 pm

Bank of America is being sued by a customer demanding that “1,784 billion, trillion dollars” be deposited into his bank account.

Plaintiff pro se Dalton Chiscolm filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan against the largest U.S. bank and its board, complaining that he placed a series of calls to the bank and received inconsistent information from a “Spanish wom[a]n.”  According to court documents, he alleges that deposited checks have been rejected because of incomplete routing numbers.

According to an order issued by Judge Denny Chin, “The claim is incomprehensible.  Although he alleges that the basis of jurisdiction is federal question, no federal cause of action is stated.  Even liberally construed, the complaint does not appear to assert a federal cause of action.”

Chiscolm has until today, October 23rd, to amend his complaint to better explain the basis for his claims or his complaint will be dismissed.

—Source:  Reuters.com

Defective Brief Lawsuit Dismissed

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom, Legal Tales — nhiemstra @ 1:01 pm

A Florida man may need to pay closer attention to the old adage, “We all put our pants on the same way.”

Escambia County Judge Pat Kinsey dismissed a lawsuit filed by Alfred Freed against an underwear company, stating that the fault lies with plaintiff Freed who testified that “he dresses by placing his underwear inside the pants he plans to wear that day and then pulls both on together.  He testified he never puts his underwear on and adjusts himself to get comfortable.”

Freed, who weighs about 285 pounds, sued Hanesbrands, Inc. for $5,000 in damages he blamed on a gap in his briefs that resulted in painful rubbing.  Hanesbrands’ expert witness insisted the underwear was fine.  Freed rejected the company’s offer to settle for $1,500.

Acting as his own lawyer, Freed argued that the irritation was caused by sand he picked up in his bathing suit while on a Hawaiian vacation.  Over time the condition worsened and Freed claimed an abrasion developed because there was a tendency for the fly to “gap” while he walked.  The hearing included evidentiary presentations regarding “horizontal tension” versus “vertical tension.”  In a four-page ruling, Judge Kinsey wrote, “It was proved to the court that plaintiff’s manner of getting into his underwear was far more likely to have caused this problem than defective manufacturing.”

The lawsuit was dismissed, but Kinsey cited that her jurisdiction did not extend far enough to grant Hanesbrands’ request to ban Freed from posting videos about his case on the Internet.

—Source:  Pensacola News Journal (Florida)

Nothing Casual About This Lawsuit

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom, Legal Tales — nhiemstra @ 12:53 pm

via: cfif.org

A federal judge in New York threw out a complaint by a lawyer alleging a constitutional right to wear jeans and a baseball cap in court.

Donning an “Operation Desert Storm” baseball hat, blue jeans, and a button-down shirt, attorney Todd Bank appeared before housing court Judge Ann Katz who told him he was dressed inappropriately.  Then the court clerk asked him to remove his hat.  Bank sued the judge and clerk, claiming his right to free speech and his liberty to dress as he wishes were violated.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis disagreed, writing that a courtroom is a “staid environment” where a judge can set reasonable limits to enforce “commonly shared mores of courtroom civility.”

Ruling that the case raised “no serious dispute,” Judge Garaufis lamented that the Attorney General’s office had to expend resources defending the matter.

—Source:  Reuters.com

Conservatism, Feet Planted

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom — nhiemstra @ 12:43 pm

via: cfif.org

The larger danger for America is that Obama’s habit of throwing up after throwing down demonstrates moral weakness and encourages potential enemies. This signals springtime for those that would seek to harm us, so extreme caution is in order.

Former Republican Congressman and Love Boat television star Fred Grandy likes to remind listeners of his Washington, D.C. morning radio program that in politics, “once you throw down, you can’t throw up.”

In other words, once you attempt to take a stand or assert a position of strength, you cannot subsequently back down when the going gets tough without exposing weakness and undermining your legitimacy.  Don’t feign forcefulness if you can’t afford to have someone to call your bluff.

Apparently, however, Barack Obama is too busy listening to his audio copies of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons or what remains of Air America’s programming to receive Grandy’s wisdom.  As a result, one calendar year after being elected to the White House, the predominant behavioral trait that Obama has exhibited is first throwing down, then throwing up.

Think back, for instance, to Obama’s clumsy mishandling of the Cambridge, Massachusetts kerfuffle between Harvard professor Henry Gates and Police Sgt. James Crowley.  Even after stipulating that he was unfamiliar with the underlying facts in that racially-charged incident, Obama carelessly slurred the Cambridge police for acting “stupidly.”

In other words, Obama threw down.  But then he threw up.

When it became clear that Professor Gates was the inflammatory party who descended into profanity, disorderly conduct and degradation of Officer Crowley, Obama quickly retreated and hosted his awkward White House “beer summit.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s mishandling of the Gates/Crowley incident stands inconsequential compared to other examples of oscillation.

Remember in March when Obama solemnly committed to our war effort in Afghanistan?  Back then, he feigned strength by labeling the theater “increasingly perilous,” and scapegoated his predecessor by alleging that “for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq.”  Piling on, he added, “for three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need.”  As a consequence, he boldly claimed that “I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan” which “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.”

Well, it’s now been over half a year since that speech, but Obama continues to dither in indecision and irresolution.

Why?  Have our commanders been any less clear about the resources they need?  Is Afghanistan any less perilous than it was when he made his speech in March?  Does the war effort demand any fewer resources than he claimed it did then?

Of course not.  General Stanley McChrystal has remained perfectly clear about the urgency of the situation and the resources he needs to win.

But once again, Obama is throwing up after throwing down.

He has demonstrated similar irresolution regarding Iran and North Korea, which continue their nuclear ambitions despite claims from Obama that such misbehavior will have “consequences.”  Or consider his promise that ObamaCare wouldn’t add “a single dime” to our exploding federal budget deficit, only to welcome Congressional proposals that will pour kerosene onto our fiscal fire.

And now this week, the Obama Administration has thrown up after throwing down in Honduras.

Despite lecturing domestic voters and the entire world for years that he would end America’s supposedly “unilateralist” foreign policy, Obama proceeded to dictate to Honduras how they should manage their domestic constitutional affairs.

Back in June of this year, the Honduran Supreme Court had ordered rogue President Manuel Zelaya removed from office and arrested for attempting to supersede the Constitution, illegally run for another term and stir mob violence.  It must be noted that both the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court are dominated by Zelaya’s own political party, not some antagonistic cabal.

Refusing to respect Honduran sovereignty, the Obama Administration sanctimoniously ordered that nation to return Zelaya to office.  Obama’s command was tantamount to the Russian government ordering the United States to reinstate George Bush as President after attempting to illegally run for a third term.  Worse, Obama sided with dictators Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro over the functioning democratic government of Honduras.

Fortunately for Honduras, in this instance, Obama has once again thrown up after throwing down.

Last week, the Honduran government and Zelaya reached an agreement after Obama sent an American delegation to help broker a deal.  Under the agreement, the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court will determine whether to reinstate Zelaya for the remainder of his term.  The Obama Administration naturally attempted to claim victory in this accord, ignoring the fact that these are the same legislature and Supreme Court that legally removed Zelaya in the first place for his unconstitutional actions.

How this situation ultimately resolves remains uncertain.

But the larger danger for America is that Obama’s habit of throwing up after throwing down demonstrates moral weakness and encourages potential enemies.  This signals springtime for those that would seek to harm us, so extreme caution is in order.

The Obama Way: First Throw Down, Then Throw Up

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom — nhiemstra @ 12:28 pm

via: cfif.org

The larger danger for America is that Obama’s habit of throwing up after throwing down demonstrates moral weakness and encourages potential enemies. This signals springtime for those that would seek to harm us, so extreme caution is in order.

Former Republican Congressman and Love Boat television star Fred Grandy likes to remind listeners of his Washington, D.C. morning radio program that in politics, “once you throw down, you can’t throw up.”

In other words, once you attempt to take a stand or assert a position of strength, you cannot subsequently back down when the going gets tough without exposing weakness and undermining your legitimacy.  Don’t feign forcefulness if you can’t afford to have someone to call your bluff.

Apparently, however, Barack Obama is too busy listening to his audio copies of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons or what remains of Air America’s programming to receive Grandy’s wisdom.  As a result, one calendar year after being elected to the White House, the predominant behavioral trait that Obama has exhibited is first throwing down, then throwing up.

Think back, for instance, to Obama’s clumsy mishandling of the Cambridge, Massachusetts kerfuffle between Harvard professor Henry Gates and Police Sgt. James Crowley.  Even after stipulating that he was unfamiliar with the underlying facts in that racially-charged incident, Obama carelessly slurred the Cambridge police for acting “stupidly.”

In other words, Obama threw down.  But then he threw up.

When it became clear that Professor Gates was the inflammatory party who descended into profanity, disorderly conduct and degradation of Officer Crowley, Obama quickly retreated and hosted his awkward White House “beer summit.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s mishandling of the Gates/Crowley incident stands inconsequential compared to other examples of oscillation.

Remember in March when Obama solemnly committed to our war effort in Afghanistan?  Back then, he feigned strength by labeling the theater “increasingly perilous,” and scapegoated his predecessor by alleging that “for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq.”  Piling on, he added, “for three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need.”  As a consequence, he boldly claimed that “I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan” which “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.”

Well, it’s now been over half a year since that speech, but Obama continues to dither in indecision and irresolution.

Why?  Have our commanders been any less clear about the resources they need?  Is Afghanistan any less perilous than it was when he made his speech in March?  Does the war effort demand any fewer resources than he claimed it did then?

Of course not.  General Stanley McChrystal has remained perfectly clear about the urgency of the situation and the resources he needs to win.

But once again, Obama is throwing up after throwing down.

He has demonstrated similar irresolution regarding Iran and North Korea, which continue their nuclear ambitions despite claims from Obama that such misbehavior will have “consequences.”  Or consider his promise that ObamaCare wouldn’t add “a single dime” to our exploding federal budget deficit, only to welcome Congressional proposals that will pour kerosene onto our fiscal fire.

And now this week, the Obama Administration has thrown up after throwing down in Honduras.

Despite lecturing domestic voters and the entire world for years that he would end America’s supposedly “unilateralist” foreign policy, Obama proceeded to dictate to Honduras how they should manage their domestic constitutional affairs.

Back in June of this year, the Honduran Supreme Court had ordered rogue President Manuel Zelaya removed from office and arrested for attempting to supersede the Constitution, illegally run for another term and stir mob violence.  It must be noted that both the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court are dominated by Zelaya’s own political party, not some antagonistic cabal.

Refusing to respect Honduran sovereignty, the Obama Administration sanctimoniously ordered that nation to return Zelaya to office.  Obama’s command was tantamount to the Russian government ordering the United States to reinstate George Bush as President after attempting to illegally run for a third term.  Worse, Obama sided with dictators Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro over the functioning democratic government of Honduras.

Fortunately for Honduras, in this instance, Obama has once again thrown up after throwing down.

Last week, the Honduran government and Zelaya reached an agreement after Obama sent an American delegation to help broker a deal.  Under the agreement, the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court will determine whether to reinstate Zelaya for the remainder of his term.  The Obama Administration naturally attempted to claim victory in this accord, ignoring the fact that these are the same legislature and Supreme Court that legally removed Zelaya in the first place for his unconstitutional actions.

How this situation ultimately resolves remains uncertain.

But the larger danger for America is that Obama’s habit of throwing up after throwing down demonstrates moral weakness and encourages potential enemies.  This signals springtime for those that would seek to harm us, so extreme caution is in order.

Let-Them-Eat-Cake Nancy

Filed under: CenterIndividualFreedom — nhiemstra @ 12:23 pm

via: cfif

The economy is the fundamental political issue because the political class, bipartisanly, got us to this dreadful place. We could count the ways, but you know all those, even if the political class, bipartisanly, doesn’t.

Marie Antoinette had nothing on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, except perhaps Marie’s ignominious end, no longer practiced in civilized countries.

Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, once all the noise is removed, produced one inescapable conclusion.  It did not take those elections to produce that conclusion.  It is as plain as day, but there is something about our time in America that requires a two-by-four up aside the head to get through.

The voters of New Jersey and Virginia said they are hurt, confused and angry.  They are hurt, confused and angry over the shambles that is our economy.  Yes, it is still (and seemingly ever) the economy, stupid, as some clichéd headlines acknowledge, although stupid is really much too weak a word to describe those who don’t get this.

Tell us that the same motivating factor is not the fundamental political issue across all fifty states, and either you’re really not knowledgeable enough to be talking or you’re a liberal political consultant trying to hang onto your retainer.  Not national?  Only in a political fantasy is the economic pain of the electorate not national.

The economy is the fundamental political issue because the political class, bipartisanly, got us to this dreadful place.  We could count the ways, but you know all those, even if the political class, bipartisanly, doesn’t.

So against that backdrop, with unemployment nudging 10 percent nationally and much worse in some areas and for some groups of workers, with local, state and national debt escalating like swine flu, what does the most powerful person in Congress do?

Does she tell the American people that Congress got the message, and until the economy is fixed (not based on the lying data of lying politicians and lying bureaucrats), Congress is going to devote every waking hour to fixing it, whatever that takes?  Does she walk among the barrios and the plains and the tent cities from sea to angry sea, offering, even insincerely, comfort to the afflicted?

She does not.  Instead, she makes some calculated, cutesy statement about gaining two Democrat votes (from California and New York special elections to fill, temporarily, empty seats) so she can plunge ahead in her imperial attempt to transform American health care into the most disruptive, costly and byzantine system of statist dictate yet perpetrated on the American people (and we are already enduring some past champions of the genre).

She schedules a vote for Saturday.  Does the House plan cost $1.2 trillion or $2.4 trillion?  None of the numbers are even close to the ultimate reality.  And for what?  Are you going to be better off?  Are your neighbors?  Are your children?  Your parents?  Your doctor?  Your hospital?

You’ve heard all the arguments, pro and con.   If you’re for it, or if you’re for your Congress doing this right now at the expense of critical economic issues, to which this will but add, then enjoy your weekend.  If not, well, you might better be doing some fast critical thinking as to how you can convince your Representative in the House to respond to you, not to Nancy Pelosi, and now.

Pelosi must have this vote before the House recesses.  She knows it; the President knows it.  That’s the only hope either of them have to keep their members in the Yellow Submarine after Tuesday’s election, which was not about who or which party won or lost, but about what people, in states far more than two, desperately want and need.

It’s not this.  Not this way.  Not now.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.