PMSNBC’s Standards Are Lower Than Whale Feces In The Mariannas Trench

That’s a 7 mile deep ditch in the Western Pacific. PMSNBC is not a News Organization, it’s a collection of vile sub-human thinking they’re No.1

Video With Cheney Fighting For Breath Leaves Mika Laughing
By Mark Finkelstein | April 04, 2011 | 09:36

Are you old enough to remember the polio-era line: “funny as an iron lung”? After all, what kind of person would find funny the notion of someone fighting to breathe?

Answer: Mika Brzezinski.

Today’s Morning Joe played a Letterman clip of a faux-promo for an imaginary TV show called “The Dick Cheney Story.” As the title song from the Mary Tyler Moore Show plays merrily in the background, we’re treated to images of Cheney wielding a gun, in a wheelchair and undergoing open-heart surgery. The clip closes with video of Cheney fighting to get a breath of air.

Cut to Mika, doubled-over, laughing hysterically, literally to the point of tears.
View video after the jump.

More: See the video at the link
Read more:

KSM to be tried by a military tribunal / Updated with Eric Holder’s crying

From :

In Reversal, 9/11 Plotter to Be Tried by Military Panel

By Charlie Savage

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, ending a year of indecision with a major reversal, will prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, before a military commission and not a civilian court, as it had once planned.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is set to announce on Monday afternoon that he has cleared military prosecutors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to file war-crime charges against Mr. Mohammed and four others accused in the Sept. 11 case. Mr. Holder had decided in November 2009 to move the case to a federal civilian courtroom in New York City, but a political backlash shut down that plan.

The move was foreshadowed by stiffening Congressional resistance to bringing Guantánamo detainees into the United States and by other recent announcements clearing the way for new tribunal trials. Still, it is a significant moment of capitulation in the larger collapse of the Obama administration’s effort — begun with fanfare in its opening days in office — to roll back the counterterrorism architecture left behind by former President George W. Bush.

More at the link.

I’d point out here that the eleventy-first Congress, controlled by Democrats, cut off funds for President Obama’s plans to close the detention center at Guantanamo, in May of 2009, and attached a rider to the Defense Appropriations Act passed in December of 2010 prohibiting the use of federal funds to bring Guantanamo detainees to the United States for civilian trials.
Updated: It seems that Attorney General Eric Holder is upset that our elected representatives had something to say about this.

Eric Holder Lashes Out At Congress Over Decision To Try KSM In Military Tribunal

WASHINGTON — After announcing it would try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged conspirators by military commission rather than in a civilian trial, the Obama administration quickly scapegoated Congress to explain the decision.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that his department was scrapping its November 2009 decision to hold Mohammed’s high-profile trial just blocks from the World Trade Center. Instead, they were moving the venue to Guantanamo Bay. Holder and other administration officials said the policy reversal was due to congressional interference in executive counterterrorism efforts and “needless” drumming-up of controversy.

“The reality is, I know this case in ways that members of Congress do not,” Attorney General Eric Holder said during a press conference. “I have looked at the files. I have spoken to the prosecutors. I know the tactical concerns that have to go into this decision. So do I know better than them? Yes.”

And the Members of Congress know the realities of the situation and their responsibilities to their constituents better than Mr Holder. It’s just so terrible that our elected representatives got in your way, but, gosh darn it all, that’s what happens in a democracy sometimes.

The attorney general said had not arrived at the decision comfortably. Had he had his druthers, Holder claimed, he would have kept the trial in its original setting, but the legislative branch controls the money for transferring the prisoners and securing the site.

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 prohibits use of funds to transfer defendants from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. In a file dismissing the indictment of Mohammed and the four alleged conspirators sent to the Southern District of New York on Monday morning, members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office pointed to the act as the prohibitive restriction preventing a federal trial.

Well, if the Attorney General is all that upset about it, he can always resign. But, Mr Holder’s sensibilities didn’t cause him to resign in November of 2009, either:

Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions. About 90 others have been cleared for repatriation or resettlement in a third country, and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material.

Why is the Attorney General upset in the first place? In November of 2009, he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that even if Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was acquitted, he would not be released, but held indefinitely:

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder’s comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that’s the way the system usually works.

But pressed today by Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about what might happen “if, by some one in a million fluke, one of the defendants were acquitted,” Holder responded in effect that they won’t be released.

First, he noted, Congress has already barred any Guantánamo detainees from being released inside the United States. But then, pressed again about what would happen “if one of these terrorists” in the future were found not guilty or given a short sentence, Holder agreed that the Justice Department would still retain the authority to lock them up as enemy combatants.

“I certainly think that under the regime that we are contemplating, the potential for detaining people under the laws of war, we would retain that ability,” Holder said.

What the heck is the purpose of whining that the Congress is forcing the military tribunal decision on the Administration, if the Administration has already decided that the prisoners won’t be released regardless of the outcome of the trial?

C’mon, Mr Holder, show us just how committed you are here, and resign with dignity.

If you have any, that is.

It’s not just a “great idea”

From Hot Air:

Lindsey Graham on Koran-burning: “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war”

posted at 4:00 pm on April 3, 2011 by Allahpundit

Skip ahead to 2:05, bearing in mind that this guy might have ended up as Attorney General under President McCain. A few minutes earlier, Harry Reid told Schieffer that Congress will “take a look” at Jones’s act and the ensuing “protests” in Afghanistan, so at a minimum there’ll probably be some sort of congressional resolution of disapproval. Maybe hearings too: Reid wouldn’t commit to that, but he didn’t rule it out. As for Graham, “I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable,” he laments, clearly deflated by the thought that the First Amendment applies even while we’re “at war.” And if you’re not sure what he means by “at war” — well, I’m not either. Are we “at war” only if troops are in the field? No Koran-burning, in other words, until the last U.S. serviceman has left Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya)? Or are we “at war” as long as Al Qaeda and other anti-American jihadist movements exist, ready and willing to demagogue acts like Jones’s for their own uses? Even if all Islamist outfits in the world were eliminated, wouldn’t Graham want to continue the ban on Koran-burning lest it inspire new jihadist outfits to spring up? There’s no limiting principle to this idea, realistically. It’d end up being his own version of an “emergency law.”

Here’s the tape; the part in question is around the 2:20 mark.

No, Senator Graham, free speech isn’t a “great idea,” it’s an unalienable right of man, something our Framers realized was not granted by the government, but simply recognized by the government.

We need every Republican vote in Congress, but it’s a crying shame that we have to depend on statists like Senator Graham for one of them. He needs a serious, conservative primary challenge, though he won’t be up for re-election until 2014.

Sounds like Jersey!

Our too-infrequent contributor, Mr Grey Ghost, has this one up on his site:

Snooki Gets $32,000 To Speak At A College, Nobel Prize Winner Toni Morrison Gets $30,000

The sad state of our college universities (esp. on the east coast) around the country are pretty much summed up here:

Big hair scores big bucks in speaking fees at New Jersey’s state university. A Nobel prize? Not so much.

Rutgers University on Friday defended spending about $32,000 to bring reality television star Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi to campus this week, despite several students questioning if it was a wise use of money.

That’s $2,000 more than the school is paying Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winning author Toni Morrison to speak at graduation on May 15.

“We have more than 200 events on our campus during the course of the year, everything from scholarly presentations to entertainment,” Rutgers spokesman Steve Manas said.

“The students canvassed for who they wanted here and had the funds available,” he said.

More than 1,000 people came to the New Brunswick, New Jersey, campus to hear Snooki of MTV’s “The Jersey Shore” speak Thursday.

Student Hina Rehman, 20, said she found it “disappointing” her tuition money was going to fund the event.

“The fact that our school spent $32,000 to bring her is ridiculous,” she said. “It’s fine the money used here is meant for entertainment purposes, but I think we can get better entertainment than that.”

Big hair? Yeah, that’s what Miss Polizzi is famous for! :)

Clearly, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) has a lot more work to do!

Great Balls of Fire

I had sent a picture that Mrs Pico took of the spare daughter in front of the Cake Boss shop in Hoboken to the e-mail group, and Gretchen said that she was glad that I specified that it was the spare, and that I hadn’t robbed the cradle with Elaine, a la Jerry Lee Lewis. Which, of course, means a YouTube:

Free Market V Government Control

In the early 1600s, one of the very first American Colonies tried government-controlled socialism: From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. It failed miserably. It almost destroyed the colony as the people came close to starving to death in toto. The colony switched to free market principles. The people owned their land. The people owned their own industriousness. The people owned their own harvests and could do with them what they wished. At that point, the colony switched from decimation by starvation to wealth-generation and resounding success.

From the early 1600s to the early 1900s, the US has used free market principles to become the wealthiest, freest, most generous nation in the history of the world. Starting around the 19-teens, American “Progressivism” has been destroying the very thing that made America great, with a brief respite in the roaring 1920s as Conservative free market principles held sway.

Around 1930ish, “progressivism” once again held sway, to the demise of the American economic framework. “Progressive” principles, which are anti-free market, anti-freedom, hyper-extended and greatly deepened a recession-turned-depression into the “Great Depression” which America felt longer and more deeply than most of the rest of the world. Contrary to some Conservative opinions, the Great Depression was not ended by the need for materiel during WWII. The Great Depression actually extended slightly beyond the end of WWII.

Around 1946, there was a mild cut-back in the “progressive” agenda, which greatly helped kill off the Great Depression. The Conservative principles put into Law around that time cannot be lightly dismissed as they helped generate the massive economic explosion. Granted, the US was one of the extreme few heavily industrialized nations that were not decimated by WWII*, which greatly benefited the US post-WWII, but that benefit would’ve been heavily dampened had it not been for a roll-back on “progressive” Laws.

From the late 1940s through the 1960s, the US economic explosion benefited greatly from their being the only nation that could actually produce en masse. Europe and the Pacific Rim were decimated. It really was up to the US to pull the world out of the destruction that was WWII. And American ingenuity and industriousness and freedom and generosity did just that.

But, after the free world recovered from WWII, economic competition from the free world slowed US growth. And American “progressivism” further eroded US growth. American “progressivism” has pumped millions of people into the role of leaches; made millions of people dependent on others instead of independent and responsible for themselves. And American “progressivism”, which is government mandated “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”, is rapidly decimating the US, American culture, and by extension, the world.

The US is still the most generous nation in the world. And American Conservatives are still the most generous people in the world. But as the American “Progressive” movement continues to decimate the US, we will soon reach the point where we can no longer be generous, as a nation or as individual people. And the world will be much the worse for it.

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” has decimated nations everywhere it has ever been implemented, and will continue to decimate nations everywhere it is implemented until the Day of the New Millenium when Christ rules the world (when “from each to each” will be an illegal philosophy).

When the Iron Curtain finally fell, East Germany was absolutely cratered while West Germany was massively successful and it took lots of time to repair East Germany from the devastation of WWII+Communism. Romania, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Empire, the Balkans, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc, etc, were all still decimated from WWII and Communism. Cuba is still decimated from Communist “from each to each”. North Korea is absolutely decimated from Communist principles. In the Middle East, except for Israel, the people are impoverished while the ruling class is grossly wealthy.

In fact, looking at the world, the American middle class is wealthier than many nations’ wealthy class (when excluding their ruling classes). But if “progressives” get their way, the American middle class will vanish. The American wealthy class (except for the ruling class) will vanish. Freedom across the world will vanish. And the “progressives” will never understand what happened. Because the “progressives” will always, always, always depend on the continuously and always failed policies of history.

*While Canada, New Zealand, Australia were not decimated in WWII, I don’t believe any of those three were heavily industrialized because they were mainly agrarian in my estimation. Switzerland was nominally neutral but loved it some Nazi treasure. And in my own view, Switzerland was an agrarian/banking nation and not heavily industrialized.

I guess that I’ll have to write President Obama and decline the State Dinner invitation

I picked up PFC Pico from her Army Reserve unit this afternoon, and we were discussing her college choices. I had seen some stuff for Norwich University online — they are advertising heavily for an online Master of Arts in Military History degree — and said that it might be an interesting place.

Her response was that she was in no way interested in a military school, that it held no more appeal for her than West Point. I pointed out that, with a degree from West Point, she could pretty much write her own ticket, but she said that she didn’t care. I said, OK, you could try for Annapolis, and there they’ll teach you the proper placement of silverware at the dinner table as well as the other things.

She then said that nobody cares about the proper place settings, and who knew what they were anyway. I then described them for her, and she asked how I knew that.

“From my mother, of course.”

“Well, no normal people care!”

I then reminded her that I am the standard by which normal is judged, and somehow, some way, she still didn’t care!

I guess that I’ll just have to decline that state dinner invitation, because, Heaven forfend! what if my younger daughter embarrassed the entire family by using the salad fork for the main course?