- It's enough to make you sick!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
ObamaCarter is an empty suit with a glass jaw.
Wow. It would be fun to watch Ann debate Obama.
Great column! Thanks for posting it.
Ann hits in on the head here.
“Technically speaking” Obama’s performance was not “bad” at all. If he was up against Hillary it would undoubtedly been a draw, with all marveling at their polemical dexterity and issue-dodging dexterity.
The problem was that John wasn’t playing the same game. He was doing “straight talk” whiles Barry was doing “nuance.” Unfortunately, nuance vs. straight talk is like scissors vs. rock. It was glaringly obvious that Obama was out to bamboozle us by telling us as little as possible through Clinton-speak and legalese. The “above my pay grade” line was the absolute worst of the evening. He outright refused to answer the question. And he wants to be president? By showing us how good he is at pulling the wool over our eyes?
I’m afraid these times are just too dangerous for us to afford to elect another Clinton or Carter. Pooty the Punk may yet think back to the timing of his Georgia invasion as the mistake of his career. The one thing reassuring about him is the knowledge that (unlike Ahmedinajad) he doesn’t want to get nuked any more than we do.
As I posted on another thread, some conservative group or individual needs to publish some of Justice Thomas's well-reasoned dissenting opinions, such as that in the Kelo case. Such an undertaking might enlighten voters who never see the dissenting opinions and have been "dumbed down" like Obama by their educational training.
The final paragraph of the Kelo opinion demonstrates clearly why Senator Obama and the far left in America fear a Supreme Court justice who looks to the "intent" or "meaning" of the Founders for guidance in decisions like Kelo. After all, that's what Thomas Jefferson advised, when he said: "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (1823)
Here is the final paragraph of Justice Thomas's opinion:
"The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8—12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court." - Justice Clarence Thomas (Source: Cornell University web site)
To use a phrase the Left often employs, "most Americans," I believe, would find Justice Thomas's "legal mind" to be in accord with that of the genius Jefferson--not with that of the liberal justices and Senator Obama!
The way it’s written and Obama’s response means that slavery is still legal because the Constitution doesn’t mention it ...it also doesn’t mention not adding gasoline to milk either but we don’t do it .....
It's an interesting concept, though: the idea that a human being could count as 3/5 of a person. Maybe Obama would want to apply his great constitutional mind to the task of determining what percent of a person a baby might be: 1/3 before birth, 2/3 upon passage through the birth canal, 3/3 upon issuance of a Social Security number?
Bingo! Then perhaps non-citizens wouldn't be "persons" either? Could we then classify the unborn and the newborn as simply "undocumented immigrants" of a sort? But only if the unborn, the newborn and the undocumented immigrants could be killed ad libitum and added to the municipal landfill -- forget "due process of law."
Disposing of unwanted individuals swiftly and brutally seems to much easier when their "person" status isn't quite in order.
How's that for a Jim-Dandy legacy of slavery?
And then there's this really nifty juridical concept developed by brilliant German legal minds, the Untermensch: from unter, “under, below” + Mensch, “person, human”. That had wonderful practical applications, as well.
All one has to do is to separate the concept "human" from the concept "person." A trick Obama has already mastered.
He is the ONE !!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ...............
"I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?
Annie’s guns are loaded.........and hitting the target!
I heard someone call him “Chance the Gardiner”
Beside the fact that Chance was actually very sweet and Obama is a self centered jerk, their stories are the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There
How about Bill Maher for VP, he’ll be in town anyway? And, he has Dem morals.
“Bill Maher’s being imported from LA for one night, to emcee a big razzmatazz celebrity-logged Rolling Stone magazine blowout, “An Evening of Sex, Politics and Rock ‘n’ Roll,” co-hosted by Trojan condoms. He’ll do 45 minutes.”
NYPost
How about Bill Maher for VP, he’ll be in town anyway? And, he has Dem morals.
“Bill Maher’s being imported from LA for one night, to emcee a big razzmatazz celebrity-logged Rolling Stone magazine blowout, “An Evening of Sex, Politics and Rock ‘n’ Roll,” co-hosted by Trojan condoms. He’ll do 45 minutes.”
NYPost
Someone just has to ask some obvious follow ups. How old were you when you lived overseas? How old were you when you studied overseas?
Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality Of Slavery Ban (Ann Coulter: Bright Nerd Alert)
ANN COULTER:CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN (For or Against?)
.jpg/302px-Ann_Coulter_2007_(Cut_image).jpg)
Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his.
CHORTLE