Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse, we get the top rated contender for Rosie’s slot:
Roseanne Barr has emerged as the top contender to replace Rosie O’Donnell next year on “The View,” sources say.
Sheesh. Not much to say after seeing that. Other than I don’t watch “The View” and hope this doesn’t mean that I have to listen to her sing “The Star Spangled Banner” again.
The New York Times, via Drudge, reports that New Jersey Gov. Corzine apologized for having his chauffer drive like a bat out of hell in an attempt to make it to the Imus-Rutgers basketball team meeting:
FLORENCE, N.J., April 30 — Gov. Jon S. Corzine apologized to New Jersey residents Monday as he left the hospital 18 days after a devastating car crash in which he was not wearing a seat belt and was riding in a car traveling at more than 91 miles an hour on the Garden State Parkway.
“I set a very bad example,” said a contrite Mr. Corzine, who broke his left femur and 11 ribs in the accident, speaking from a wheelchair just outside Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J.
Of course, upon leaving the press conference, Corzine quickly showed us the difference beetween an apology and a sincere apology:
No one in the motorcade used emergency lights, as his driver had been doing at the time of the accident. They kept to a pace of about 70 miles per hour, even though the posted limit is 55 on the stretch of Interstate 295 that leads to Drumthwacket, the governor’s official mansion in Princeton, . . ..
Classic.
Newspaper circulation continues to decline:
NEW YORK (AP) — Weekday circulation at U.S. daily newspapers fell 2.1 percent in the latest six-month reporting period, according to figures released Monday, in the latest sign that people are turning to the Internet and other media for news.
The Dallas Morning News is almost in free-fall, losing 14 percent of its subscribers.
The only bright spot for print papers:
Online readership of newspaper sites continues to grow. The NAA pointed to recently released data from Nielsen//NetRatings showing a 5.3 percent increase in the number of people who visited newspaper Web sites in the first quarter of 2007.
San Antonio police spent early Sunday trying to get an alligator off of Loop 410:
And it wasn’t going to be scared easily. Police yelled and threw orange traffic cones at the gator, but it wasn’t impressed. It snapped the cones and flung them away — even taking a chunk out of a patrol car’s bumper.
Finally, using a lasso and metal poles, officers coaxed the alligator back into a drainage ditch leading to Mitchell Lake, where it probably lives.
This story made me think of three things:
1. Isn’t it a sign of the times that, no matter where you are, there are an abundance of orange construction cones available to throw at wayward alligators?
2. Doesn’t San Antonio issue guns to its policemen? (Sorry PETA.)
3. How many tow trucks were lined up to haul the gator away?
This is, honest to God, an actual picture of Britney Spears walking around in public last week.
Folk’s that ain’t just slutty (which would hardly make news)… that’s insane.
I fear we are beginning to enter Michael Jackson territory here, where it becomes increasingly obvious that there is no one within a celebrity’s circle of influence who is willing to put their best interests above personally benefiting from their fortune and fame.
A lot of criticisms have been leveled against G.W. Bush, some fair, many not. But I have come to believe the view of a lot of folks, including scores here, that he has an agenda on Mexico that doesn’t exactly jibe with the views of we humble nationalists.
If you need a reminder, get a load of this:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court stepped into a Texas death penalty case Monday that mixes Bush administration claims of executive power with the role of international law in state court proceedings.
Now this fellow was convicted and sentenced under the same Texas laws that apply to the behavior of everyone in the State. But our procedures weren’t enough for the International Court of Justice, which said that the proceedings against over 50 Mexicans violate international law. This Court, by the way, touts on its website:
Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).
Certainly comforting to all America haters.
The International Court held that the USA had violated the Vienna Convention by failing to provide the requirements of consular notice and access to the accused persons (there is no allegation or finding that the convicted were not guilty), and directed that the US “shall” take steps necessary to halt executions of certain of the convicted, and that the US “shall” report back to the International Court concerning measures taken to implement the Court’s order. (A summary of the opinion is here.)
And in this battle between a State of the USA and an international court (whose members include, in addition to westerners, judges from Madagascar, Jordan, China, Mexico and the Russian Federation), with whom do you think our President sided?
Unusual for a death penalty case, the administration is siding with Medellin in asserting that the president’s primacy in conducting foreign policy is being challenged.
President Bush ordered new state court hearings for the defendants based on the international court ruling. But a Texas appeals court said the president exceeded his authority by intruding into the affairs of the independent judiciary.
Imagine that: A President of the United States siding with a foreign goverment against one of the several states, and “ordering” new state court trials based on the ruling of some “judges” in The Hague!! Jimmy Carter? Yes. Bill Clinton? Surely. But “Republican” George Bush? (And when did GW become annointed Jurist in Chief?)
I wonder some days how his approval rating could possibly be as high as 29%.
Tomorrow is another busy May Day for illegal immigration rights supporters. From the Immigration Solidarity Network website:
A national day of multi-ethnic unity with youth, labor, peace and justice communities in solidarity with immigrant workers and building new immigrant rights & civil rights movement!
Wear White T-Shirt, organize actions to support immigrant rights!
WE ARE ALL HUMANS! NO ONE IS ILLEGAL!
1) No to anti-immigrant legislation, and the criminalization of the immigrant communities.
2) No to militarization of the border.
3) No to the immigrant detention and deportation.
4) No to the guest worker program.
5) No to employer sanction and “no match” letters.
6) Yes to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
7) Yes to speedy family reunification.
Yes to civil rights and humane immigration law.
9) Yes to labor rights and living wages for all workers.
10) Yes to the education and LGBT immigrant legislation.
Note that the group openly rejects detention, deportation and even a guest worker program, because they want citizenship for illegals - nothing less will satisfy these extremists. They want anyone who crept in unseen to be able to bring his entire family over immediately. And of course, they want free education, etc. Apparently, these people would insist we should have no control at all over our borders - that they should mean nothing.
And for all of you bigots out there who think otherwise, here’s your sign:
I hope you are not planning a trip to Los Angeles tomorrow - if so, expect delays:
LOS ANGELES, April 29 (UPI) — Los Angeles is bracing for massive traffic jams Tuesday when May 1 rallies are to be held for immigration reform and labor rights.
The two rallies in the central part of the city are eagerly anticipated by immigration-rights advocates and dreaded by emergency officials and some business owners, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.
I’m sure the Times is absolutely giddy with excitement.
For my fellow sports fans, the story on radio guy Granato:
John Granato will leave KILT (610 AM), effective today, under the terms of an out-of-court settlement reached Sunday night in his lawsuit against CBS Radio, KILT’s parent company.
No word on what radio station may be in his future.
People will do the strangest things to bring attention to an issue.
The NAACP held a symbolic funeral in Detroit 63 years ago for Jim Crow.
The civil rights organization will do the same this summer for the “N” word, the Rev. Wendell Anthony said Sunday.
There’s even going to be a eulogy, can’t wait to hear that. Here’s to hoping the genre of hate rap crawls into the coffin with it.
In a short tag to a column about the growing momentum for a presidental bid by Fred Thompson, Chron columnist Clay Robison agrees with President Bush that money trumps all in politics.
If, as expected, the House accepts Senate changes to a transportation measure this week, Gov. Rick Perry will receive a bill imposing a two-year moratorium on private toll roads, his second slap in as many weeks from his Republican colleagues in the Legislature.
The first was the passage of legislation to rescind his legally questionable order for schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the HPV virus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.
Perry’s veto of either bill would set up the first veto override confrontation between a governor and the Legislature since 1979, when the governor, Bill Clements, was a Republican and the Legislature was still dominated by Democrats.
Predicting what Perry may do is dicey, but I think he is more likely to veto the toll road moratorium and let the HPV setback become law without his signature. In the latter case, he can at least argue that he has focused public attention on an important health issue.
An HPV veto is almost sure to be overridden without much help being offered to the governor, while the business community, including some heavy political contributors, may help Perry lobby lawmakers against overriding a toll road veto. Blocking an override of either bill will be difficult, since both had overwhelming legislative approval.
It will be interesting to see what Perry does. If he does as Robison suggests that he will, it will be even clearer that his motivation behind the HPV bill was driven by money, not the compassion that he spoke about in his state of the State address.
(click pic for story)
Concealed Handgun License Training– New licenses $100 (classes approximately every other week), recertification $80 (done weekly). Price includes all range fee, fingerprinting, notary work and photographs. Basic training available for persons who want a license but have little or no experience with a firearm. Ask about special group classes. Contact Austin Arrington 281-948-8373.
——————–
Get paid to tell us what you think– Register to participate in one of our focus groups; earn money telling us what you think about politics, your community and consumer goods. Click here to learn more and sign-up!
——————–
——————–
Dawn Wolf Design– LST’s full-service graphic designer of choice. Talented, professional, competitively priced; a generous LST volunteer, we could not recommend her more highly. | 713-781-8900 | website
——————–
Lufkin (TX) Daily News Publisher Gary Borders declares America will lose the war in Iraq.
Does anyone any longer believe that we possess the moral force in Iraq? Or that we ever did? That’s why we are doomed to lose. Not because we haven’t deployed enough troops, or didn’t plan well enough, or whatever lame reason those in power put forth these days. We’re losing because this entire endeavor was wrong from the beginning.
Thanks Gary, the troops appreciate your support.
The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.
–Will Rogers
Did the last election prove this wrong?
This past week, the new Democratic Congress, sent a military appropriations bill for President Bush to sign. There is one hang-up: there is a timeline for the U.S. forces in Iraq to leave.
In other words, the U.S. Congress has provided our enemies for an exact day that our forces will be leaving the war in Iraq. I don’t believe our forces would be leaving in victory. That means that will be leaving in defeat.
They leave in defeat not because they lack the ability to be fighters, it is because we, the United States people and leadership, lack intestinal fortitude and/or other related accouterments, to allow them to fight and win.
If anyone wonders why people do not trust us, this is the one huge truth: we win on the battlefield and loose our nerve at home.
We did that in Vietnam and it looks like we will do it in Iraq…
When we “bug out” that is when innocent by-standers get killed.
When we left the war in Vietnam, do you remember all of the people that were killed? The boat people? The killing fields? The millions that were exterminated? Is it any coincidence they were slaghtered by the thousands, after we left?
The very same people that said only a few thousands would be killed when we left Vietnam, are saying the same thing about Iraq. Does that concern you in any way? John Kerry, in his testimony in 1971 before congress, said only a few thousand would die after we left. That turned out wrong in an exponential degree. So how are they right now?
If you are against the war because so many innocents get killed, your cry shouldn’t be “end the war”, it should be “FINISH THE WAR”!
There is a huge difference.
Barack Obama said it best I think, “We are one signature from ending the war”. He is right. But fortunately, President Bush will not give that signature. He plans to veto that bill.
In the next few weeks while you hear all of the bickering back and forth about who, when, where and how, please think about these images:
and this picture from a recent dispatch written by Michael Yon:
You need to read Michael Yon’s most recent dispatch. He tags along with the 1-4 Cavalry from Fort Riley, Kansas. The majority of the dispatch are pictures taken at an abandoned Christian college, the Pontifical Babel College that the soldiers transformed into Combat Outpost or COP. It is fascinating.
In the meantime, it will be interesting how this “showdown” between congress and the President will play out. The troops need money in order to continue their work in Iraq. If the Democrats in Congress continue to appropriate the money with the surrender date, the President will continue to veto the bill. Eventually, the troops will eventually run out of money. Will the same outcome happen (the troops leaving Iraq)? Or will the money eventually be appropriated without the deadline so the President can sign it?
P.S. If you are interested in the mind of a “defeatest” this is what I wrote right after the elections:
During my first semester at LSU over 20 years ago, I took an American Civics class (or something like that). Our Professor was 40ish, full facial hair and had a very large Santa Clause paunch. He would roam the aisles, up and down, and advocate that the United States had not won a war since 1900. That every war since then either was not won at all (as in Korean stalemate) or we had allies that actually pulled the victory out for us (such as Great Britain winning WWII). Students would challenge him, but he had everything figured out; he would give his pat answer grinning from ear to ear. He especially would get happily animated when he described the chaos and carnage that occurred at the American Embassy in Vietnam during the last days of that war. He described at length how the American military was barely able to get out of Dodge before the Vietcong took over. He was proud of that. Not mentioned were the Vietnamese people that were slaughtered for helping an American in any way.
-snip-
The bottom line with him was the idea that the American military was so inept and inherently evil, that they were incapable of winning a war. Ever.
If you are interested in reading the rest, it can be found here.
More after effects from the Republican Party’s collapse that allowed Democrats to take control of the US Congress last November. In the latest incarnation of new “hate crime” legislation, homosexuals are going to be given protected status.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
Chairman John Conyers and Congressional Democrats kept evading the issue, providing reasons why they could not accept the amendment until Rep. Lundgren demanded, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
At that point Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama candidly said, “Yes.”
That’s right folks. If the new “hate crimes” legislation is approved, it will be a crime to say that your Bible says homosexuality is a sin if someone within earshot hears you and at some point commits a crime against a homosexual. The Democrat majority in the US House Judiciary Committee voted down 25 amendments that Republicans put for to clarify the intention of the bill, including an exemption for religious beliefs.
A coalition of black pastors is lobbying against the bill.
“This bill will offer a status for gays, lesbians and transgender people under the equal protection status that can muzzle the black church,” said Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., pastor of Hope Christian Church in Lanham and founder of the High Impact Leader Coalition. “This law can be applied in the way that can keep the church from preaching the Gospel.”
Now I’m sure that some of you out there are saying no way, this could never happen. Take a look at what has happened in other countries that have passed similar legislation.
In Sweden, a pastor was arrested at his church after he began reading Bible verses about homosexuality.
In Britain, an Anglican bishop was placed under criminal investigation for suggesting that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation.
The Spanish government threatened to arrest a Roman Catholic bishop for violating the nation’s law when he spoke out against the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”
But don’t think it hasn’t already started here in America.
Already, there is great evidence that an erosion of religious liberty is taking place in America. In Philadelphia, a group of Christians faced the possibility of 47 years in prison after being arrested for protesting at a homosexual parade. They were charged with various crimes, including “ethnic intimidation.” The charges were eventually dismissed.
In Tennessee, two men were arrested for carrying large wooden crosses during a “Gay Day” Parade. The men were charged with “interfering with a specialevent.”
In Vermont, a family-owned inn is facing a state lawsuit after its Christian owners expressed a lack of interest in hosting a same-sex civil union ceremony.
While you are sitting outside today enjoying the weekend weather, think about what you can do to stop the progression of the liberal agenda in our country. The Republican Party blew their opportunity with their arrogance and mismanagement. It is now up to you.
for runaway polygamous lesbians.
A Nigerian lesbian who “married” four women last weekend in Kano State has gone into hiding from the Islamic police, with her partners.
But that’s nothing. They are also actresses. And, uh-oh, Muslim.
Under Sharia law, adopted in the state seven years ago, homosexuality and same-sex marriages are outlawed and considered very serious offences.
You would run to, considering the punishiment.
For a married woman the offence would be considered adultery for which the punishment is death by stoning. A single woman would be caned.
All is not lost in this article. They also pointed out the punishment for some dude that wanted to be a woman.
Two years ago, a Sharia court sentenced a man to six months in prison and fined him $38 for living as a woman for seven years in Kano.
I’m thinkin’ he might have been caught on purpose. Six months with those brutes…..
You can thank Hamous for this one
(foxnews) PETA — those People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — has a message for the editors at the Associated Press:
Fido’s a “he,” not an “it.”
In a letter written to Goldstein, the animal activists ask the AP to “take a progressive step and give animals the respect that they deserve by revising AP style guidelines to reflect the usage of personal pronouns for all animals.”
In case you don’t remember this is from the group that thinks animals should be extended the same rights and privileges as humans. In short that means you don’t own them.
Readers comments Fri - Thu that caught my eye.
In the category of “It’s About Time For Everyone To Realize This” goes:
Squawkbox Noise Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pm eThere is no such thing as a RINO.
Republicans are just that. A group of like minded people that belong to the Republican party.
In the category of “Global Warming Etiquette” goes:
Maltboy! Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm eI wonder… What would Ms. Crow’s reaction be if she found out her kitchen servants were only using one square of TP when they were preparing her meals, and not washing afterwards in order to save water and not pollute?
In the category of “Hey, I Asked” goes:
undeadsinatra Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 11:49 pm eBigJolly asked me to weigh in here:
What can i say, I don’t agree with Russell Simmons.
Pick your argument:
-Freedom of speech
-let the marketplace decide
-there’s plenty of hip-hop out there that doesn’t use that language
-if you outlaw this language than only outlaws will use that language
-any cultural shift in hip-hop lyrics will have to be organic and from the bottom up in true hip-hop style
-by and large the most “offensive” of hip-hop should be taken as seriously as comic books
-These three forbidden words easily mean different things to different people and can be used in many different context.
-I agree with Joan Morgan — to target this language and not even bring up slurs for gays and lesbians is indeed prety disenginous.On the other hand, if artists chose to express themselvs with such obvioulsy loaded language they have to be prepard to defend their artistic decisions.
According to WorldNetDaily, last night’s Democratic debade pleased an international audience, including terrorists:
“We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically,” said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.
After repeating a Democratic saw about this being another Vietnam, Abu Jihad, smooth and clever PR operative that he is, offered the U.S. both the carrot and stick:
“The (Democrat) debate showed that like in Vietnam the American people needed these thousands of soldiers killed to see that invading other people will always result in a failure. … I think the Democrats will win and apply an immediate withdrawal, but if they don’t (withdraw), the revolutionary movements in Iraq will intensify attacks, and I think you should prepare for another big attack in the U.S.”
Another terrorist leader, Abu Aziz, finally revealed that the Iraq war was just another Jewish conspiracy:
“[T]he invasion of Iraq was judged by Allah to be a failure. America needs to stop letting its foreign policy be dictated by the Zionists and the Zionist lobby. The Democrats understand this point and want to prevent this scenario.”
This same fellow, who seems to be unusually chummy with the Democrats (saying it is “very good” that there are “voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion”) had an ominous warning for you and me:
“I think the more Americans receive the bodies of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more the conservatives in the U.S. will be sentenced to be thrown in the garbage,” he said.
Well, I guess we better start thinking about that secret handshake and identifying rendezvous points for when we have to go underground. (I have a few ideas, and they all involve a minimum of five taps).
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to suggest that radical Islam’s attempts to subvert the West include exploiting both the laws and the tolerance of a given society. Crying discrimination, annointing themselves victims and demanding special treatment are tactics that have appeared more and more frequently, as the radicals are emboldened by the weakness they perceive in those trying to appease them in the name of tolerance.
This week’s example comes from Europe:
A school in Amsterdam has halted lessons on rural life because the Islamic children refused to talk about pigs.
…
Asscher told newspaper De Volkskrant: “A primary school in Amsterdam-Noord has decided no longer to teach about living on a farm. Various pupils began to demolish the classroom when the pig came up for discussion.
How can we possibly hope to reach an accomodation with people who become violent at the very mention of pigs?
The more that our “leaders” reward such intimidation, the more the radicals will demand.
(Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)
As you are all well probably aware, I’ve been scanning the news looking for liberal views on gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.
Anyway, I recently found an interesting view from Shahid Buttar, lawyer and activist, on TomPaine.com. Buttar is quite obviously pro-gun control, but acknowleges that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. In that regard, he reasons:
The Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms. Like the First Amendment, it includes both a public and private dimension. For instance, the First Amendment protects the individual’s right to speech—but in the service of a corresponding public right to the free exchange of information and perspectives. Similarly, the Second Amendment’s private “right … to keep and bear arms” serves a broader, more important function of preserving a popular check on potentially tyrannical government.
Now, from here you’re probably asking how he can be in favor of gun control after expressing this view. I think it’s clearly impossible; here’s how he reasons:
[N]o right is absolute. Even the most precious liberties are subject to judicial scrutiny, and the authorization of restrictions where justified. The Supreme Court once went so far as to allow the arbitrary detention of a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans under its strictest standard of scrutiny. While the individual right to bear a weapon may remain legitimate in the abstract, legislatures have every right to deem the public interest in preventing mass murder sufficiently compelling to enact a law narrowly tailored to address it. In Britain, for instance, regulations on gun ownership have proven largely successful in preventing gun violence.
The flaws in his argument are painfully obvious. Sure, all rights are subject to reasonable limitations. However, they are not simply subject to a standard of “what the government feels is necessary.” Can you imagine subjecting the First Amendment to this reasoning? The government could ban any speech it deemed “dangerous.”
Furthermore, if a blanket ban on gun ownership is “narrowly tailored,” then those words have ceased to have meaning. We wouldn’t have a First Amendment then, and what Buttar suggests would essentially eliminate the Second Amendment. There would, instead, be a right to keep and bear arms that the government could eliminate at any time merely by citing public safety. This is not the way other rights are treated, and it defeats the purpose of the Amendment. It is “broadly tailored” by any definition.
Buttar’s examples are also curious. He cites the Korematzu decision, which is highly controversial and widely regarded as incorrectly decided. President Reagan even went so far as issue and official apology complete with financial compensation to the victims of the Japanese internment. I doubt Mr. Buttar thinks Korematzu was justified anyway, so it’s unclear why he mentioned it.
He then writes that gun control has been successful in Britain, which simply isn’t true. According to the British Home Office, which compiles crime statistics, “the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98.”
So what purpose does the Second Amendment supposedly hold for Buttar? Read on:
[J]urisdictions around the country have increasingly impeded concerned citizens from raising their collective voice. During the 2004 Republican National Convention, the New York Police Department infiltrated peaceful activist groups and arrested nearly 2,000 people—many without probable cause, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and settlements. Earlier this month, reports emerged that, during a 2002 protest in Washington, a secret FBI unit illegally detained and harassed a group of anti-war activists.
But the Second Amendment guarantees a right to resistance. At the very least, these abuses should not take five years to come to light, nor should they be addressed only after-the-fact. Gestapo tactics by local police departments and federal authorities to intimidate non-violent dissidents should be struck down as unconstitutional.
[…]
It was precisely for times like these that the Second Amendment was created: to guarantee a right to citizen insurrection—not a right to impose risks on communities by forcing open the door to weapons, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did when recently striking down the District’s public safety laws.
This is a bit off the deep end, no? He’s spun the Second Amendment to where it doesn’t protect what it purports to protect, namely the right to keep and bear arms, and instead protects the rights of extremist protest groups against law enforcement. It’s utter nonsense.
Sure, the Second Amendment does dovetail nicely with the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, as Buttar indicates. It guarantees the right of people to challenge the government. However, the Second Amendment deals with the possibility of armed insurrection, not protests. The rights of protestors are effecitvely dealt with elsewhere. The right of US citizens to arm themselves, potentially against a tyannical government, is the object of the Second Amendment. You cannot spin that away.
The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” clearly opens the door to weapons ownership. If this bothers Buttar, he should come out and say that he doesn’t support the Second Amendment. However, this tortured evaluation, if it can even be called that, is simply embarassing — particularly when coming from an attorney.
WASHINGTON — A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.
For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.
No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.
I guess they figure their job is to tell us what to do, not to do it themselves.
I wonder which was worse for the environment - the pollution from so many jets or the toxic gas released during last night’s Democratic debate?
It’s nice to see the Saudis can crack down on terrorists - at least when Saudis are the target:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Police arrested 172 Islamic militants, some of whom had trained abroad as pilots so they could fly aircraft in attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, the Interior Ministry said Friday. A spokesman said all that remained in the plot “was to set the zero hour.”
