Monthly Archives: April 2013

Beats a burqa

New York Magazine: “Femen’s so-called “topless jihad” in support of Tunisian member Amina Tyler has grown into a bigger project, leader Inna Schevchenko declared. “At the heart of Islamism lies the enslavement of women based on control over their sexuality,” she wrote in an op-ed for CNN. As a result, Schevchenko says the aggressively topless activists plan to take on not just Tyler’s Tunisian captors but all of Islam.”

Take your child to work day should be fun


Washington Post: “More than a dozen Maryland state prison guards helped a dangerous national gang operate a drug-trafficking and money-laundering scheme from behind bars that involved cash payments, sex and access to fancy cars, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.

Thirteen female corrections officers essentially handed over control of a Baltimore jail to gang leaders, prosecutors said. The officers were charged Tuesday in a federal racketeering indictment . . . Four correction officers became pregnant by one inmate. Two of them got tattoos of the inmate’s first name, Tavon.”

Boston Police Commissioner Clueless about Islamic Jihad

No matter how many hundreds of Islamic Jihadi attacks against the Western “infidels” occur, no matter how many times the Islamic jihadis state their reasons, there will be those like Boston Police Commissioner Davis who says his biggest question for the younger Tsarnaev is “why?” Buy a clue Commissioner. Islamic Jihadis demand conversion, submission or death for infidels, including women and children.

Bloomberg: “People who want to take . . . our freedoms”

Mayor Bloomberg, with a straight face, warned yesterday that “there are people who want to take way our freedoms,” while calling for “different interpretations of the Second Amendment.” Bloomberg’s remarks were apparently made without a trace of irony from the man who restricts what New Yorkers may eat, drink and smoke.

“What difference does it make?”

Ever predictable Chris Matthews summons his inner Hillary in whining to FBI profiler regarding Boston bombers, “What difference does it make why they did it.” Of course Matthews was keenly interested in motive when he suspected a right wing terror plot. This echoes Hillary’s screeching “what difference . . . does it make” why terrorists killed our Ambassador in Benghazi, after Hillary’s lie about the anti-Muslim video was exposed.

Groups and examples, not individuals

The President’s repeated use of the Newtown parents in public appearances pushing for “gun control” legislation reveals the liberal/progressive tendency to view people as groups, and
“examples,” rather than as individual citizens. This conforms with the liberal/progressive invention of a group (the state national guard) constitutional right to keep and bear arms rather than that right belonging to the individual citizen. Of course, the “group” right attached to the 2d amendment is different, to the liberal/progressive, than the “individual” rights of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure or to assemble, among others, also contained in the Bill of Rights. The liberal/progressive urges that the “people” in the 2d amendment is a group (the state) while the “people” in 1st and 4th amendments is an individual citizen.