Gabe, sending this to me, is speechless, except to sputter "Rly? Rly? Rly?."

President Barack Obama says only once since Jan. 20 has White House life annoyed him.

It was the Saturday in May when, trying to be a good husband, he kept a campaign promise to take his wife, Michelle, to New York after the election for one of their "date nights" - dinner and a Broadway play.

"People made it into a political issue," Obama told The New York Times Magazine for an article about the Obamas' marriage, appearing in the Nov. 1 issue. The article was posted on the Times' Web site on Wednesday.

"If I weren't president, I would be happy to catch the shuttle with my wife to take her to a Broadway show, as I had promised her during the campaign, and there would be no fuss and no muss and no photographers," he said. "That would please me greatly."

If you weren't president, I think a lot of people would be pleased, dude.

No fuss, no muss:

more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:44 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday the President signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was hooked onto the Defense appropriation to ensure its passage.

The new hate crimes law creates yet another specially protected group under federal law. It demonstrates Democrats' disdain for the principle of equal treatment under the law. Like other hate crimes laws it criminalizes having the wrong thoughts rather than wrong conduct. It may subject individuals to double jeopardy. And it is entirely superfluous, as ColoradoPatriot writes:

I, too, am disgusted by the crimes against Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. I am glad that those who perpetrated these villainous acts against Shepard are currently each serving two consecutive life sentences. They will never again see the light of day. Meanwhile, two of the three murderers of Byrd are awaiting their executions while the third is currently serving life in prison.

What must be realized, however, is that the fates of these five men are symbols of how the justice system in America worked without the need for a hate crimes act.

Democrats revel in the game of dividing Americans into groups and doling out special treats for the ones that behave. It's not something to celebrate. It's a disgrace.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:42 AM | Comments (192)
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:22 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

From the moment the United Nations approached
us to negotiate with the peaceful Islamic Nation of Iran, its
clear intention was to intrude into our sovereignty and
keep Iran from peacefully developing nuclear energy.

Yet in spite of this unreasonable position we agreed to listen
out of our respect for the world community. It is with this
understanding and goodwill that we consider your proposal.

Cordially,

Mahmoud

Could be a rough translation, but I'll bet it's close.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:47 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Good evening morons!

The Awesomely Honest Mobile Home Commercial
Okay if I ever go shopping for a mobile home, I'm buying it from these guys. Or not. And yeah this video was on Red Eye last week but it's too good not to share.

Plus here's the making-of-the-commercial video which is entertaining as well. I like Robert Lee's policy of not selling you a home if you seem too whiny or stupid.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:10 PM | Comments (698)
Post contains 265 words, total size 3 kb.

Okay, I guess for the World Series a thread is warranted.

Posted by: Ace at 04:13 PM | Comments (285)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh -- even though it's bang-on accurate, it's actually an ad being run by Hoffman supporters, made to look like Scozzofava reaching out to her liberal base.

Video here.

Dirty trick?

Eh.... Kinda, yeah. It's not that the facts are dishonest. It's just that it successfully mimics an ad actually in favor of a candidate, and so lets you believe this is Scozzofava's pitch.

Still: Good ad! The controversy over it can only help Hoffman.

Thanks to TimV.

Posted by: Ace at 03:08 PM | Comments (137)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

And shockingly he decides they violate international law. I am sure there is a law somewhere that they do violate, and shockingly I don't give a rat's ass. I can't say for sure that we have signed any treaty or agreement that requires us to proffer up said ass of rat, but if we did we ought to renounce it. The scary thing is that our soon to be Nobel Laureate gives rat asses by the train load about what the crap weasels at the UN think. Let me give the UN Rapporteur my thoughts.

UNITED NATIONS — US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN's top investigator of such crimes said.
"The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan," UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.
"My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said

Dear Eurocrat weasel,

If there are international humanitarian or human rights laws that you think impact our right to kill terrorist ass clowns anywhere we find them on Earth, then I suggest you print out a copy, roll it up real tight and poke yourself in the eye with it. We do not recognize your right to castrate us, and even though it makes you cry yourself to sleep at night, we will continue to manufacture dead tangos as quickly as we are able. We will fly drones that rain down literal Hellfire and make them explode into their component molecules. We will drop big-ass laser-guided bombs that may even take them down to the sub-atomic level. We will shoot them with sniper rifles ventilating them with .50 cal holes. We will even occasionally scarf one up and render him to certain friends of ours who will be extremely cruel to him, and maybe even waterboard him since we no longer have the stones to do that ourselves.

"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.

Actually no, we are completely un-onused by the whole situation, you empty-headed, animal food trough wiper.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 02:02 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 786 words, total size 5 kb.

Most Of Life Really Is About Showing Up

What's the cost of not showing up to court? For PepsiCo Inc., it's a $1.26 billion default judgment. A Wisconsin state court socked the company with the monster award in a case alleging that PepsiCo stole the idea to bottle and sell purified water from two Wisconsin men.

Goodness. They must have had an important reason to skip this one, eh.

In court papers, PepsiCo claims it first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant's letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo's law department. Tamoney's secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn't tell anyone about it because she was "so busy preparing for a board meeting," PepsiCo said in its Oct. 13 motion to vacate.

When Henry received a forwarded copy of the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on Oct. 5, she sent that to Yvonne Mazza, a legal assistant for Aquafina matters. Remembering that she still had the other document, Henry passed it to Mazza too.

OUCH.
It's so easy for one little detail to slip through your fingers when you have a lot going on...but still.

That's gonna leave an ugly mark on her performance review.

Posted by: LauraW at 01:28 PM | Comments (106)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Kabuki?

Bayh said he didn't "think that's even worth starting a discussion on" provisions "that would explode the deficit... or would dramatically increase the premiums that ordinary families are paying."

Hell, which provisions don't explode the deficit, or dramatically increase premiums? Or cut care and increase costs (and eliminate the commercial insurance industry)?

At this point it feels more like "what's the minimum we can inflict for the maximum number of bought Democrat voters?"

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 12:36 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.