<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/7626745258811529122?origin\x3dhttp://opinetree.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Woman Born in 1955 to McCain: Do I Have to Be Worried About Becoming a Slave Again?

September 12, 2008 |

Whoopi Goldberg is worried that John McCain's decision to appoint Supreme Court justices who strictly interpret the constitution could result in the return of slavery all over America. John McCain is worried that spending two more minutes on The View could result in the return of his lunch all over his favorite tie. Watch:



Since Whoopi apparently knows the constitution so well, she might want tell the rest of us about the 13th amendment. You know, the one that states that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Somewhere, steam is shooting from Ron Paul's ears.

See also: SHOCKER: ONLY 29% OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS THINK SUPEREME COURT RULINGS SHOULD BE BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION

Labels: ,

Duh: Clarence Thomas Says Affirmative Action Isn't Exactly Constitutional

September 10, 2008 |

I know it's a shock, but Clarence Thomas (currently and coincidentally the only black Supreme Court justice) said yesterday that affirmative action and race-based criteria for employment or college admission is not only unhelpful to blacks, but is constitutionally problematic.

He's right. Racism as practiced through affirmative action is unconstitutional, because as the playing field for getting a job or getting into a university is forcefully leveled, many times the undeserving benefit while the hard-working end up getting the shaft. And for what again? Oh, that's right...their race, and nothing more.

From the wire service that doesn't like being quoted:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday that African-Americans are better served by colorblind programs than affirmative action.

Thomas, addressing leaders of historically black colleges, said affirmative action "has become this mantra and there almost has become this secular religiosity about it. I think it almost trumps thinking."

A longtime opponent of race-based preferences in hiring and school admissions, Thomas said, "Just from a constitutional standpoint, I think we're going to run into problems if we say the Constitution says we can consider race sometimes."

Thomas, 60, has voted on the court to outlaw the use of race in college admissions and in determining which public schools students will attend. He wrote with evident resentment in his autobiography "My Grandfather's Son" that he felt he was allowed to attend Yale Law School in the 1970s because of his race and took a tough course load to prove he was as able as his white classmates.

Firing someone because of their skin color is as equally racist as hiring someone because of their skin color. Anyone who can't understand why affirmative action is a fundamentally racist concept should probably stop reading this blog.

But feel free to tell your friends about it.

Labels:

Shocker: Only 29% of Obama Supporters Think Supreme Court Rulings Should Be Based on the Constitution

September 9, 2008 |

I sincerely wish I was making this up, but according to a recent Rasmussen survey, just 29% of voters supporting Obama believe Supreme Court justices should rule based on what is in the U.S. constitution.

From Rasmussen:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.
If you're a fan of George Bush (something I am not), you might want to mention this little tidbit the next time you find yourself listening to someone on the left talk about how important the constitution is, and how much our president has destroyed it.

If this isn't Ron Paul's worst nightmare (and indeed that of the constitution's authors), I don't know what is.

Labels: ,

What Would Muhammad Do?

June 26, 2008 |

Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi marriage officiant, gave an interview on Lebanese television in which he stated that it is permissible to "marry a girl at the age of one, if sex is postponed." He further justifies this by stating that, "The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow; he took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine." Watch.



So Muhammad was a pedophile? Good to know! You should understand that the young mind of a Saudi male needs the companionship and intellectual stimulation that only a one-year-old can bring to the table. And if you don't think having sex with a nine-year-old is rape, you should...well, you should move to Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, citing "evolving standards of decency," our own Supreme Court has just ruled that we are not allowed to execute someone who rapes a child. The ruling stemmed from a 2003 case in which a man was sentenced to death for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. What was the Supreme Court's justification? That executing someone found guilty of child rape would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment, constituting "cruel and unusual punishment."

So I guess having the perpetrator raped is out of the question? Two of the most liberal judges the court has ever seen, Souter and Ginsberg, based their decision on "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Could a "maturing society" be one that isn't full of child rapists?

Justice Alito wrote that the 5 judges ruled against the death penalty "no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's criminal record may be."

In a 5-4 vote, the liberals on the Supreme Court, rather than acting as protectors of the nation's children, have thrown them to the wolves. Muhammad would have loved it here.

Labels: ,

got something to say?

You can be heard here. If there's an article that isn't getting enough attention, a story that's not being told, or an opinion that isn't being voiced, send an email and I'll start the presses.

hits counter