Jul 08 2011

My article at Renewing American Leadership is up

Category: abortion,freedom,government,justice,liberty,media,politics,religion,societyharmonicminer @ 12:09 am

You may recall an earlier post where I described the humiliation of trying to get a decent photo for another website, to accompany an article I had written for that site.  The article is now up at Renewing American Leadership, or ReAL.

BTW, after the debacle of trying to get a decent headshot photo for ReAL, my daughter finally came over with her professional SLR camera and her knowledge of light, shadow, exposure and (certainly not least) her skill at touching up afterwards, to get the picture of me that appears at ReAL.  At least she didn’t make me look like I’d just finished the perp walk.


Feb 15 2011

Planned Parenthood gives free business advice: part two

Category: abortion,illegal alien,justiceharmonicminer @ 10:59 am

Planned Parenthood is just so helpful. Great customer service.


Feb 14 2011

Planned Parenthood gives free business advice: part one

Category: abortion,illegal alien,justiceharmonicminer @ 5:57 pm

Here is a video of a Planned Parenthood worker giving business advice to a pimp and a prostitute and conspiring to provide birth control, STD testing and abortions to underage prostitutes in their employ.


Feb 13 2011

Manhattan Declaration Pro-Life Video Contest winners: #1

Category: abortion,justiceharmonicminer @ 10:01 am

The Manhattan Declaration people have just finished a video contest for pro-life videos.  Here is the winner.


Feb 12 2011

Manhattan Declaration Pro-Life Video Contest winners: #2

Category: abortion,justiceharmonicminer @ 10:01 am

The Manhattan Declaration people have just finished a video contest for pro-life videos.  Here is the number two finisher.


Feb 11 2011

Manhattan Declaration Pro-Life Video Contest winners: #3

Category: justice,raceharmonicminer @ 10:01 am

The Manhattan Declaration people have just finished a video contest for pro-life videos.  Here is the number three finisher.


Jan 12 2011

Peter King, gun control, and deranged killers

Category: justiceharmonicminer @ 3:55 pm

 

Boehner opposes new gun-control bill – fortunately

 

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) announced plans Tuesday to introduce legislation prohibiting people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of members of Congress. 

King, who has previously called for the removal of illegal guns from the streets, made the announcement alongside New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation’s loudest voices for stricter gun laws. 

King said the legislation is not intended only for the safety of government officials but also to protect the public. He said elected officials are not necessarily more important than constituents, but by protecting them in this way, they would feel safer in meeting federal officials at public events. 

“The fact is they do represent the people who elect them, and it’s essential, if we’re going to continue to have contact, that the public who are at these meetings are ensured of their own safety,” King said. 

 

I’m stunned. Is King simply blind, did he not read any of the reports about the killer, or is he so in the grip of the anti-self-defense lobby that he’ll take any excuse to pander to them?

Does ANYONE actually think that ANY gun law would have stopped this deranged killer from doing his deadly deed?

This isn’t closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. This is more like opening the barn door in the hope that the horse you’ve already beat to death will come home.


Oct 25 2010

Watch this. Then tell your friends to watch it.

Category: abortion,family,God,justice,politics,religion,societyharmonicminer @ 11:07 am

Making the Case for Life: Pro-Life Apologetics from Mark Harrington on Vimeo.

Hat tip:  Larry O


Aug 12 2010

Safety – Whose responsibility is it?

Category: corporations,justice,legislation,societyamuzikman @ 8:55 am

This from BBC news:

Ryanair Review Urged After Child Falls From Plane Steps (read the entire story here)

Recently a small child fell from a loading platform while boarding a jet in London.  The good news is that the little 3-year-old is fine,  just a bump on the head.  The bad news is that the airline will probably be sued by the mother and some all-too-eager attorney with visions of pound sterling dancing in his head.  The airline, not wanting any additional bad press will probably settle with the mother out of court for an “undisclosed amount”.  The airline will then probably order some reconfiguration of the boarding ramps to try and prevent a similar incident from occurring. They will then pass along the cost of the ramp retrofits to the consumer by increasing the baggage charge or perhaps initiating the first-ever rental fee on passenger jets for personal flotation devices.

What ever happened to accidents?

Why was this mother trying to handle so much all at once, especially given the multiple offers of assistance airlines give to mothers traveling with small children.  Why did the mother think of handing the smaller child off to the flight attendant only AFTER the little girl fell?  Why do we INSTANTLY assume negligence on the part of the airline?  Why doesn’t the Air Accident Investigation Branch order all parents of toddlers to undergo a review of their plane-boarding procedures?

The answer is at least in part the phalanx of John Edwards-type lawyers all too ready willing and able to go on the attack against the party with the “deep pockets”.  We have heard about how litigious our society has become and for good reason.  As long as these litigators are allowed to roam free with no governors on their behavior (like a loser-pays law or a monetary limit on damages) the queue of lawyers will continue to form everywhere something like this happens.

Another answer is the loss of the concept of personal responsibility in our world.  One need look no further than the body politic to see a very large group of elected and appointed government officials who virtually never take personal responsibility for ANYTHING!  Liars, cheaters, plagiarists, and influence peddlers are the stock -in-trade of congress. Our prisons are full of convicted criminals who are all innocent.  We have fat people who are not responsible for their weight, smokers who are not responsible for lighting up and illegal aliens who are not responsible for being here illegally.  I could go on.  So, why should this mother be responsible for her daughter’s accident?

I am a father.  My wife and I have raised 3 children.  When we got on a plane with our kids we made sure they got on the plane and in their seat.  When we took them to the playground it was our responsibility to see to it they didn’t break their neck.  Have you noticed the changes that have taken place at playgrounds over the last 20 years?  How did any of us who are over 30 ever survive?  The way we are going in another ten years all playgrounds will consist of a pile of pillows with the pillow cases depicting pictures of kids playing on REAL (but illegal) playground equipment.

Sometimes there is negligence on the part of the doctor, or lawyer or business. And when that happens there is a system in place to deal with it.  But sometimes it is not the fault of the party with the deep pockets, the blame lies with the so-called “little-guy”.  And sometimes it’s an accident.  But even to say so invites accusations of callousness and lack of caring and concern.

But I can’t be responsible for having written this.  My mother smoked while she was pregnant with me and she ate food with salt, and there was no warning label on this blog site and my English teacher in college was negligent and ….


Jul 28 2010

Justice is blinded by politics

Category: government,illegal alien,justice,legislationharmonicminer @ 4:08 pm

Here is the introduction to Andy McCarthy’s comments on today’s Arizona Immigration Decision

On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument, i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted <the>  concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.

There is much more at the link above, including references to other federal court precedents that the judge seems to have decided to ignore… presumably because they would not have led to the decision she appears to want. (She is a Clinton appointee, and presumably leans left, as essentially all of his appointees did.)

There are other federal laws, laws the enforcement of which requires local law enforcement to be directly involved, and even take initiative, on matters ranging from kidnapping to terrorism to the Mann Act to drugs, literally thousands of laws.

There is no precedent for the federal government to sue to stop a state from enforcing federal law in a constitutional way.  Imagine if local peace officers were not allowed to notice if someone was selling illegal drugs (mostly federal laws), or to stop a kidnapping, or arrest someone carrying a grenade launcher (not illegal according to some state laws, but banned federally for most civilians).  Imagine if local peace officers were not allowed to notice someone carrying a sign advocating the assassination of Obama, or the bombing of a federal facility?

That is the ridiculous position we’d find ourselves in, if the notion that local peace officers can’t enforce federal law ever became consistently applied, and that’s why the judge’s decision is ridiculous.

This was a PURELY political lawsuit, brought by a president who wants to buy off the Hispanic vote in 2012, even at the cost of the congress in the 2010 midterms, a president who cynically believes that Hispanic voters are in favor of illegal aliens in large numbers.

I hope he is wrong in ascribing such motives to legal Hispanic voters.  If he is right, it will be interesting to see exactly how much other American citizens care about this.  How many who usually don’t vote can be energized to get to the polls to avoid amnesty (official or unofficial) for illegals?

Not enough, I fear.


« Previous PageNext Page »