Monthly Archives: May 2009

Judging the Judges……….

Tommy DeSeno is quoted on the Drudge as saying:  “Since she is replacing a liberal –  Justice David Souter — the appointment will be of no consequence to America.”  He is speaking, of course, about the newest nominee for the Supreme Court.  And, he obviously doesn’t care whether she is qualified or not.  He just wants her confirmed!

His statement is pure political speech.  There are few jobs more important than those of the judges of the Supreme Court and each and every one of them should be scrutinized right down to their toe nails, just like Clarence Thomas was.  Enough of this political correctness foolishness.  Make sure the nominee is going to make decisions based on the constitution, not on ethnicity, gender, or political philosophy.

Unfortunately, Soltemayor has said that courts DO create policy.  That is contrary to the Constitution.

She HAS said that judicial decisions might be different if they come from a man or woman, a latino or an old white guy.  That, too, is directly opposed to the theory of blind justice that supposedly rules our country, and is a fundamental tenet of our Constitution.

She does not seem to have the judicial temperament that the Constitution requires.  If these comments are truly her philosophy — and there is no reason to doubt it — then, she should NOT BE CONFIRMED.

And, whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Independent, I hope that you will not be swayed by flippant arguments such as Tommy DeSeno proposes.  EVERY judge on the Supreme Court is important.  And, EVERY judge should be weighed and balanced as to their judicial temperament.  This is a lifetime appointment and we can’t afford to make a mistake just because some want to have “their” nominee win.  Choosing a Justice is not a game.  It is a matter of Supreme urgency.

Which statement is she standing by?

Pelosi today said that she “stands by her previous statements.”

Does that mean the statement where she denied ever hearing about interrogation techniques?

Or, is it the statement where she acknowledged that she “might” have heard about their potential use, but did not realize the techniques were ACTUALLY in use?

Or, is it the time when she accussed the CIA of lying to her and Congress?

Or, how about when she said she supported the CIA, but was referring to the previous administration when she mentioned that she and Congress had been misled?

It’s really difficult to figure out which statement she is standing by.  That’s the trouble with lying.  My father-in-law used to always recommend telling the truth because it was the easiest to remember.  Apparently, Pelosi would prefer to lie in the hopes that the media won’t hold her to a standard of truth.  Well, she is right.  The media is letting her off.  But, for the rest of us…..which statement is she standing by?

Democrats are Hypocrites

Even though former Vice President  Dick Cheney was intimately involved in suppressing terrorism while President Bush was in office, he is villified for his opinion that President Obama’s decisions are making America less safe.

Even though Flaherty is a golf announcer and a guy just making a joke, he is forced to apologize for making a joke about speaker Pelosi.

Even though Wanda Sykes made a vicious joke at the correspondents’ dinner about someone she knows only anecdotally–she wished Rush Limbaugh’s kidneys would fail and that he was the 20th hijacker–  President Obama lauged!

What do all these events have in common?  Well, in the first, a Republican is stating his honest belief and yet Democrats loudly bray that he is  fear-mongering.  In the second, a Democrat is the butt of a joke, and the Democrats don’t like that either!  In the third, a Democrat is making fun of a known Republican.  Oh, my!  That is just so funny.

The President of the United States laughed uproariously at the joke.  Understandably, he felt comfortable  in the company of journalists who fawn over him. In fact, from his facial expression, he appeared to find Wanda’s joke hilarious.  Only when it was pointed out that 9/11 was NOT a funny topic, did he back up and have his spokesperson say that was not funny!

It appears that the media is willing to give President Obama yet another pass on this latest gaffe.  That is not surprising when they supported his election with slanted news coverage and pandering columns and “tailored” descriptions of what they purportedly called the news.  Oh, yes.  There are a whole bunch of hypocrites in politics, and the biggest of them all is our very own President!


It’s never enough for the Lieberals to just manufacture statistics about the climate as Al Gore did.  No, they are intent are MAKING everyone agree with their skewed analysis of climate data.  However, it is a tough sell.  So, someone came up with the idea of massaging the message into more likeable terminology.  Hence, the following is the “new” ploy for those who wish to obscure the facts of natural and normal climate change into one where the United States is to blame for a climate best described as “variable”.

Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

Published: May 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.