Latest News

  • JFK Conspiracy Theories

    JFK Conspiracy Theories

    Author Administrator

    Two conspiracy theorists die and go to heaven. St. Peter tells them that Heaven is a place of all knowledge, so they can each ask him one question and he will reveal the answer to them. The first one says "Who killed John F. Kennedy?" St. Peter says "Lee Harvey Oswald." The other says "Who was he working with?" St. Peter says "He acted alone." The two of them look at each other and say "Wow! The coverup is bigger than we thought!" But seriously, what keeps this stuff going? Some would say the evidence. Other would say mental illness. I myself am unsure, and I have a hard time really focusing on this one as I didn't live through it. This article is pretty much a starting point for me and a note to self. Steve, debunk this one.

  • Defending Incognito

    Defending Incognito

    Author Administrator

    As with any story, it is hard to say what happened unless you were there yourself. So why do I feel the need to post an article defending Richie Incognito? Because I can recognize a good snow job when I see one, and there is a blizzard coming from Jonathan Martin and company on this deal. Now to be fair, I am well aware that I am in the minority opinion on this one. Chances are if you are reading this you already have an opinion on this topic. Either I am preaching to the choir or I am dealing with a skeptic who wants to get a good chuckle at a brainwashed Dolphins fan defending the indefensible. So while I typically take the approach of building a good case, let me lay the best logical argument I have on you to kick this thing off.

  • Don't Drink The Tea

    Don't Drink The Tea

    Author Administrator

    Scott Brown, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rick Snyder. What do these guys have in common? If you are a tea party member, then you already know the answer. Rick Snyder accepted the Medicare expansion for his state. Marco Rubio tried to tackle immigration reform. Scott Brown... who am I kidding? Like they need a reason? Heck, Chris Christie hugged Obama, let's throw him under the Tea Party Express. These are all candidates once endorsed by the Tea Party who have found themselves on the outs with the same group.  Now, with another midterm election looming around the corner, it appears Mitch McConnell has made the Tea Party Hit List as well. But before you guys get too far into this, would you kindly allow me to present you with some simple logic?

  • Black Suits and Knickerbockers

    Author Administrator

    If you think political talk radio is a brutal place, you should try sports talk radio. In the world of news talk, you have a biased hosed with a political agenda attempting to spin current events to make you see them his way. In the world of sports talk, you largely have a field of minds so jammed with statistics and dates that they are unable to form a point of view on anything other than a simple Vegas line, let alone manage to try to find a way to spin the event for the mindless masses who tune it. This can make listening to channels like Mad Dog Radio on Sirius and XM Radio an exercise in frustration. Yet it is an exercise that I perform almost daily, and occasionally I call in to try to straighten some of these guys out. My latest beef? The New York Knicks.

  • Abortion: Leopards Vs Hyenas

    Author Administrator

    One of the major drawbacks of being a blogger who has opinions that don't always fit the mainstream of either political party is that, after awhile, the party faithful tend to tune you out. Truth be told, I tend to get more responses from the left than from the right when I post my articles to facebook. On the issue of abortion, I am a guy who was once in the pro life political camp until my views evolved (politically, not personally) to pro choice. Yet I have long believed, ever since I knew there even was such an issue, that we should all be able to find some common ground on a child that has been born alive. That was, of course, before I knew about a State Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama and a doctor from Pennsylvania named Kermit Gosnell.

Tweet This

Print

The King And I

Written by Administrator on .

President ObamaWith President Obama declaring section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be un-constitutional, and having his justice department announce that they will no longer defend the law, my first thought was "who does this guy think he is". If you said "President of the United States", you would be wrong. A President in our Representative Republic knows that it is the job of the courts, not the President, to determine the constitutionality of laws. And few should know that better than this one. After all, he is at the same time declaring one law un-constitutional and refusing to defend it and pushing implementation of his own Health Care Reform law that a court has declared un-constitutional. My concern is not with the defense of marriage act here, because gay marriage is a total non-issue to me. My original concern was with the precedent that is being set here. My latest concern, however, is a bit different.

Let's just take Obama at his word here, and assume for a second that he and his Justice Department find the law to be discriminatory. Would it not then be the honorable thing to do to refuse to be a part of the process of enforcing that discrimination? We have the bad habit sometimes of being outraged at lawyers who defend some of the worst scum on the planet. Isn't it nice, for a change, to see a lawyer stand up and say "sorry, but I can't defend that"? Let me give you an example.

Remember when President Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and had Neal Katyal step in to fill her shoes at the Solicitor Generals office? This outraged the right, because Mr. Kaytyal had defended terrorists being detained at GITMO. The White House, and many on the left, offered a very reasonable explanation for his actions. He is, after all, an attorney. Hence, it is his job to represent some bad people. I pointed out at the time that it wasn't exactly like the guy was a public defender, and had to take the cases. He chose to take them, and thus I criticized his appointment. In the end, the White House caved, and President Obama nominated Donald Verrilli to take his place.

Thus, I feel that at this point I should give honorable mention to the Obama Administration for standing up and saying "some things are just to wrong to defend". However, this leaves me with a serious and troubling question. Why is the line drawn here? Why is it that the Justice Department can be staffed by those who defended terrorists, but it can't defend U.S. law? By all means, have a conscience. But here and now?

I want to believe that President Obama is doing what he feels is in the best interest of the Country, and until now I have felt that way. But when lawyers can't find enough scruples to walk away from a case that leaves them defending those who attacked us, I find it hard to take them seriously when their conscience suddenly kicks in when a gay marriage issue shows up. This law, after all, was signed by President Clinton. Not a fan of him either, but that having been said, I find him much easier to defend than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Why doesn't President Obama?

If one has a problem with the Defense of Marriage Act, then let's get this thing into court and let it have its day. In the meantime, President Obama has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution lays out a process for making, challenging, and repealing law. While he may question the constitutionality of this law, the Justice Department has a duty to defend it so long as it exists. If one feels that it is acceptable to act outside of the Constitution to diminish the law, than does that same person really have the moral authority to grandstand on the constitutionality of said law?

Gallery

Phinatic