Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Sunday, March 14, 2010


As a Miami Dolphins fan, I always had a reason to dislike Tom Brady - while still respecting his ability - but now I have an entirely new reason for making him the object of my scorn. He's an environmentalist whack job and he's on YouTube asking people to turn off their lights for one hour on March 27th in recognition of Earth Hour, calling such an act a "bold statement". Eco-wackos also love to tell people that eating meat contributes to climate change.

Someone wasn't paying attention when shooting this video. Take a look at all the chopped meat on Brady's counter as he tells viewers to turn off their lights for one hour. UPDATE: AFTER LOOKING CLOSER, PERHAPS IT ISN'T MEAT CUTLETS ON THE CUTTING BOARD. PERHAPS THEY'RE GRAPES? Are we to believe Mr. Brady is such an Eco-wacko that he doesn't eat meat because he's got piles of grapes on his cutting board? Maybe he's pledging not to eat anything but grapes for an hour.

Whack Job! He's not doing much to dispel the stereotype that football players aren't that bright. Sounds like Brady could use a trip to the University of East Anglia or Penn State for an education because the University of Michigan appears to have let him down.

via Big Journalism


On October 21st, 2009, four Representatives from the U.S. Congress - Sue Myrick (R-NC), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Paul Broun (R-GA), and Trent Franks (R-AZ) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for more specific information about why the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

The letter - signed by all four congressmen - referenced the book Muslim Mafia by name because of the strong evidence it put forth via documents retrieved from CAIR offices that CAIR is trying to influence policy within the U.S. government. Via the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich's response basically reinforced the decision to name CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. CAIR has been trying to get its name removed from that list for some time so this is certainly a blow to that group.

IPT reports CAIR making claims so blatantly fallacious they would make Barack Obama blush:
Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the trial exhibits show the Brotherhood created the Palestine Committee. CAIR officials adamantly deny any involvement with either Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. The Weich letter, however, shows that the Department of Justice has not wavered in its conclusion that the internal records it possesses prove a connection.
Here is the letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by four members of congress on October 21st, 2009 and here is the response, dated February 12th, 2010.

Check out Attachment A from the HLF trial that lists all of the individuals / groups that were implicated in the HLF trial, the largest terrorist fundraising trial in the history of the United States - defendants were convicted on all 108 counts. It really is little wonder that CAIR is so desperate to distance itself from the case. The longer time goes by; the more people learn about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic threat to the west; and the more familiar they become with this case in hindsight, the more likely CAIR will find itself in a very untenable position with the American people.

More here.


When this tactic was dreamed up by Louise Slaughter (D-NY), chair of the House Rules Committee, it was met with near resounding laughter because of how ludicrous the notion was. It literally proposes deeming a Bill has having been passed because the House doesn't have enough votes to actually pass it.

It now appears that the Democrats in the House are planning to move ahead with that strategy.

Via Gateway Pundit, here is Democratic Representative Chris Van Holland (D-MD) appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

The stickling point here is that in order to use Reconciliation in the Senate - 51 votes instead of 60 to break a filibuster - the House has to pass the Senate Bill as is. The problem is the abortion language in the bill is something pro-life Democrats cannot live with - taxpayer funded abortions.

Pelosi obviously does not have the votes and isn't confident about getting them. That is the only possible explanation for moving forward with this blatantly unconstitutional strategy. Relevant excerpt of Constitution via Doug Ross:
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...
Also appearing on Fox News Sunday was Minority House Whip, Eric Cantor who actually spoke out quite forcefully about this tactic's constitutionality.

Grace-Marie Turner at National Review writes that the unconstitutionality of the whole process is being shhhed by Van Hollen for good reason:
The Slaughter Strategy would allow the Senate bill to be approved by the House via a “self-executing rule.” (These terms, straight out of a Dickens novel, may well describe what will happen to Democrats who try this.) It is not surprising that Pelosi lieutenant Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) has warned members to avoid any talk of the unconstitutional way they plan to pass the Senate bill.
Barack Obama's expertise has always been, keeping his fingerprints off bad things - real estate deal with Rezko notwithstanding - but if he knowingly signs an unconstitutional bill, his fingerprints will be on it.

If that is how this bill passes, every Republican candidate in 2010 should run on a platform that includes a promise to introduce impeachment resolutions against the President.

h/t to Free Republic
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive