May 29, 2008

Overheard in New York, pt. II

Kid #1: Paper beats rock. BAM! Your rock is blowed up!

Kid #2: "Bam" doesn't blow up, "bam" makes it spicy. Now I got a SPICY ROCK! You can't defeat that!

--6 Train

Crazy: So I had to get fillings in all of my teeth.

Passenger: Uh huh.

Crazy: But I figured, why let them do that to me after they drilled holes in my brain, ya know?

Passenger: Sure.

Crazy: But I figured, might as well! Although if they were going to fill my teeth, I'd want them to use jelly.

Passenger: Yep.

Crazy: But the guy at the counter said they were out of jelly. So I got a blueberry muffin.

--R train

The Drug Legalization Debate; NYC Edition

Hobo: Look, I'm not going to lie to you. I'm not hungry or sick, I just need some money so I can get high, but it's just weed, I don't do heroin or cocaine or any of that s---.

Guy: You know, it's because of guys like you that people think pot should be illegal! Look at you! When I get high, I pay my own way! I earn my own money and get high! There are little kids on this train! What do you think they're going to learn? Man, think a little!

--4 train

Notes from the New York Underground

The subway doors open. A hobo enters, holding a bottle of windex in one hand and a tube of toothpaste in the other.

Hobo: Which is the better time to read Dostyevsky? Winter? (He sprays the windex.) Or Spring? (He squeezes toothpaste out of the tube.)

Japanese girl: Spring!

Hobo: You are correct.

--F train

[Homeless man is giving directions to tourists.]

Construction worker to tourists below: Don't listen to that guy, he's a homeless bum. He don't know what he's talking about, he's crazy. Seriously, stop talking to him, he's just a whacked out homeless guy.

Homeless man: Yeah, well... You're homeless! Yeah, how you like that?

--Columbus Circle

Overheard in New York, pt. I

Woman: Do you have a non-fiction section?

Book guy: Well, everything that's not fiction is non-fiction. [Over] there's cooking, and there's history.

Woman: No, that's not what I asked. Do you have a section for non-fiction?

Book guy: Well, there are no non-fiction novels. Everything here that's not a novel is non-fiction.

Woman: But you don't have a non-fiction section?

Book guy: No. Everything that isn't fiction is non-fiction.

--Barnes & Noble, Staten Island

May 28, 2008

Why Immigrants Do Not Require Amnesty

(title given by best_intentions author)

by D.A. King

King is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, a coalition actively opposed to illegal immigration and illegal employment. He has appeared on numerous national television and radio networks as an authority on the issue. On the Web:
*column originally published on

"A recent news report in the Carrollton Times Georgian on a rally staged by and for people in my nation illegally has caused this long-time American to take a few moments out of his day to reply with a more pro-American side of the May Day march. And a few words on illegal immigration in general.

First: Readers can only hope that all ‘journalists’ connected with the publication of the one- sided promo piece for criminal immigration activity take a long hard look at the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists. Respectfully, the section concerning bias, fairness and balance in news reporting should be studied in depth.

From someone who has spent the last eight years studying the illegal immigration and illegal employment crisis created by the reality that the federal government has refused to secure American borders in a war on terror, a couple of facts:

It is a federal crime to transport, assist, shelter, harbor or to hire an illegal. Illegal employers should be made to march and stage rallies to demand the “right” to ignore the laws of the land along with their black-market laborers.

There is no universal civil right to live and work in the United States. We as a nation take in well over a million real, legal, immigrants every year - more than any nation on the planet. We can’t take in everyone – that’s called “open borders.”

We don’t have anything to apologize for - and sneaking into the U.S. to steal an American’s identity or creating fraudulent ID to steal an American job while illegally lowering American wages does not make one an “immigrant.”

The term is “illegal alien;" Immigrants come legally. A quick and fool-proof method of telling the difference: Immigrants do not require amnesty.

Our government says we have to pay our taxes to educate illegal alien children and provide the victims of geography with free medical care - but not that we must remain silent and allow the open borders, radical left to trample the rule of law upon which our Republic was founded.

Another one: When a participant in a march demanding amnesty for illegal aliens is speaking in a foreign language, using a candidate for office from the Socialist Workers Party (Eleanor Garcia) as a translator is not an efficient way of hiding the leftist agenda of those who regard borders as human rights violations and our nation as little more than an address.

Most Americans proved they demand defined, defended borders and a common and official language last summer when they defeated the Ted Kennedy and John McCain sponsored attempt to repeat the one-time amnesty of 1986.

Legalization is not the answer. It‘s enforcement that stops criminal activity.
On language: It was a coalition of the Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU types who defeated Rep. Tim Bearden’s HR 413 in the Georgia legislature this year that would have allowed Georgians to vote in November on making English the constitutionally official language of government in Georgia.

English as official is “anti-immigrant,” according to Bearden’s opponents.
Most Americans have had enough of the nonsense myth that there are “jobs Americans will not do” or that illegal aliens marching in American streets demanding citizenship somehow represents “equal rights under the law.”

Most of us also take a dim view of the vile comparison of illegal aliens and their mindless demands to the cause of Americans struggling for the civil rights due them as citizens under their own constitution.

Many of us think Barbara Jordan, the first black woman elected to Congress from the deep south, put it very well more than a decade ago. We live in fervent hope that we can elect leaders who share her courage and honesty.

In 1995, as the Bill Clinton appointed Chairwoman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, Jordan, a presidential Medal of Freedom winner, testified to a Congressional hearing on how to gain credibility on immigration policy: “Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave. Deportation is crucial. Employer sanctions can work.” (see full quote here)

To begin to solve the undeniable illegal immigration problem, we should ignore the open borders lobby and heed the words of Barbara Jordan.

May 23, 2008

Friday is Now Officially Charles K. Opinion Day

Obama's Metastatic Gaffe
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, May 23, 2008; Page A17

When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has entered the realm of the surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e., preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.

Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets . . .

May 2, 2008

This week's "Right on!" post

Serious props to Cheri Jacobus from for her short article, "Obama's Elitist Vacation."

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has criticized John McCain and Hillary Clinton for their support of a summer break from the 18.4 cent per gallon gas tax as a way to provide a bit of relief for Americans so they can enjoy their summer more and, hopefully, perhaps stimulate the economy a bit, as well.

Obama has stated that some experts say it could mean only a $30 average savings per family. That means those who are still unable to afford to take a vacation, won’t, and for others the savings may be $60 or $90 or more.

Elitist Barack Obama thinks that is chump change that won’t make any difference for anyone. Afterall, as we know from the Obama family’s Easter getaway, a vacation for them is a luxury trip to the Virgin Islands. However, for many Americans, summer “vacation” is a trip to another state to visit grandma or a camping trip a few hours away from home. That 18.4 cents per gallon savings can mean the difference of an extra one, two or three tanks of gas or an extra night or two at a motel or campground which can mean the difference between taking the family on a summer vacation -- or NOT.

Obama’s sneering opposition to the McCain proposal illustrates just how out of touch he is with average working Americans. No, the gas tax “vacation” won’t pay for an Obama-style family vacation in the Virgin Islands, but it can go a long way towards helping working class Americans enjoy a typical summer vacation.


Related Posts with Thumbnails