Disclaimer: I'm just an average guy with an above average interest in news and politics. But hey, here's what I think anyway...

What I think… Well, in case you missed it, President Bush again vetoed a bill passed by congress to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This is the type which requires the destruction of a human embryo in order to extract certain types of cells which some scientists claim hold curative potential for many diseases. Well I, for one, would just like to say, "Thank you, Mr. President."

It has never been medically ethical to take one life in order to save another, and don't see how embryos, the most defenseless among us, have suddenly become the exception to that rule. In addition, the President (unfortunately) is not even outlawing the studies, but has only restricted federal tax dollars from being used to fund them. By the way, if this is such a promising science, why don't we let private industries and drug companies invest in the it? The truth is that the private sector does not invest because they do not see the potential. If these cells could do what liberals are telling us they can do, then companies would be investing millions, if not billions, in them because the profits could be enormous! But they're not…

I think Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary, said it best: "The President does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes. That's a line he will not cross."

Amen.


Originally Posted June 21, 2007 at http://www.myspace.com/lastplacelead

Disclaimer: I'm just an average guy with an above average interest in news and politics. But hey, here's what I think anyway…

What I think… Well, I've been in the Fred Thompson camp for some time now, but here's an idea I hope his campaign will consider if he were to win the GOP nomination… Pick Michael Steele as your running mate! He's the perfect choice!

First of all, Steele served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, so he knows the "second-in-command" role pretty well. He's charismatic and intelligent, and he appeals to a wide range of voters. In fact, Steele almost won his race for the Senate last year, as a Republican, in a heavily Democrat state (Maryland) and in a very bad year for Republicans (2006).

Second, the Democrats will almost certainly have a female or minority candidate at the top of their ticket. Steele breaks the argument that the Dems will undoubtedly and shamelessly make, which is that the GOP is a party of old white men (though Condi Rice, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Thomas Sowell and others may beg to differ).

Thompson's the man, and Steele's the ideal VP candidate! So here's my vote for a Thompson/Steele Ticket in 2008!

Originally Posted June 26, 2007 at http://www.myspace.com/lastplacelead

Disclaimer: I'm just an average guy with an above average interest in news and politics.  But hey, here's what I think anyway...

What I think... On the very day that Islamo-facists have exported their suicide terror techniques to Western civilization, it's sad to see that the primary concern of London's liberal mayor, Ken Livingstone, is (predictably) tolerance.  Here's what he had to say:

"In this city, Muslims are more likely to be law-abiding than non-Muslims and less likely to support the use of violence to achieve political ends than non-Muslims."

Uh... Reality to Livingstone!  Can you name any non-Muslim group in London (or anywhere for that matter) that would be more likely to "support the use of violence to achieve political ends?"  Anyone at all?

Here's a little advice for you, Mr. Mayor... and it's free...  WAKE UP!  These violent Muslims obviously recognize who their enemy is... you (oh, and anyone else that doesn't hold their perverse ideals).  They want to kill you (and, you guessed it, anyone else who doesn't hold their perverse ideals).  Maybe you should aknowledge them to be enemies as well, and perhaps be a little less tolerant of their violent ideology.

Originally Posted June 30, 2007 at http://www.myspace.com/lastplacelead

What I think… Sometimes I have a hard time understanding how lawyers can make a certain argument with a straight face. I would like to enter into evidence "Exhibit A," the case of child rapist and murderer, Mark Dean Schwab, and his attorney, Kenneth Studstill. Schwab was convicted in 1991 of kidnapping, raping, and murdering an 11-year-old boy named Junny Rios-Martinez, and was subsequently (and correctly) sentenced to death for his crime. What's worse is that Schwab (now 38 years old) had only recently been released from prison after serving a brief sentence for raping another child.

Now, Schwab's lawyer, Kenneth Studstill, is arguing (I can only assume with a straight face) that Schwab should not be executed because he is a "scientific mystery," and he should be studied in order to find out how we can prevent other pedophiles from raping and killing children.

How about a little common sense, Mr. Studstill. First of all, he should never have been put back on the street in 1991 after having raped another child. He should have been locked up for his egregious offense for the rest of his life. He should never have had the opportunity to kidnap, rape, and kill little Junny. A pedophile who knows that he will receive a life-long jail sentence (with no possibility of parole) for a first offense and a mandatory death penalty (that WILL be carried out) if he kills that child, may think twice before committing the crime.

Mr. Studstill, there is no "mystery" about your client. He's a pervert. And the lessons we learn from Mark Dean Schwab are lessons we've learned far too many times already. And now the murderer needs to put to death, along with anyone else who would dare to take a child's innocence along with that child's life.

Originally Posted July 2, 2007 at http://www.myspace.com/lastplacelead

Disclaimer: I’m just an average guy with an above average interest in news and politics. But hey, here’s what I think anyway...

What I think… Apparently, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago) learned all he needed to know about the Constitution from dear ole daddy… yes, his father is Rev. Jesse Jackson, the civil rights activist and profiteer. After Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence last night, here’s what Junior had to say:

“Since the President has intervened in this process, it is now the Congress’ obligation and responsibility to intervene in the executive process and begin an inquiry into these very serious crimes against the Constitution of the United States.”

Really! Crimes against the Constitution? You don’t say! Why this is very serious indeed!  (I hope you’re picking up on the sarcasm). Apparently Rep. Jackson is dead serious though, even invoking the “I” word (impeachment) in describing what he thinks the appropriate action would be for congress to take against the President.

I wonder if Rep. Jackson would care to specify the exact Article and Section of the Constitution against which the President has committed a crime by pardoning Libby. In fact, Article II Section 2 appears to gives the President of the United States the exact authority which he exercised. It says:

“…[the President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

In other words, the President can pardon anyone he wants, except himself. Congressman (and I use that term loosely), how about a little honesty here? Either bring a specific violation (including Article and Section), or knock off this incendiary rhetoric which only serves to further drive a wedge of division in our country by fooling people who are as ignorant about the Constitution as you are.