Great idea. Meth cookers and Oxy smugglers aren’t yet making enough money.
May 22, 2013 at 6:33pm
The Regime must be really soiling their diapers over this. Look how many paid shills they’ve dispatched to claim that the abuse of private citizens by the IRS is a non-story.
Do you drones get paid by the word, or is it a GSx position? Just like to know what my tax money is funding.
May 22, 2013 at 6:24pm
Sure, sure. You’re a conservative. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
May 22, 2013 at 6:23pm
Go back and ask your pretend husband about what happens when you invoke the Fifth Amendment having already made a factual assertion.
May 22, 2013 at 6:21pm
I love the clueless irony of your post. He’s an attorney working for the US government and doesn’t even know what’s in the first Amendment, and you think that’s pointless.
It gets even better: had Lois Lerner or her attorney understood the Fifth Amendment, they wouldn’t have allowed her to make a statement before asserting her right not to incriminate herself. Since she made a statement under oath, everything she testified to in that statement is subject to examination to which she MUST testify.
Even stupider: her statement — I broke no law. I did nothing wrong — is so broad that she can now be compelled to answer virtually ANY question on this matter or be cited for contempt.
That’s why it pays to know the Constitution.
September 28, 2012 at 3:20pm
Not in this case. Public agencies and public accommodations CANNOT engage in prior restraint of free speech. If the MTA decides to defend the policy, the MTA will go to court, and the MTA will lose again; that is why they lost in the first place. This is exactly what liberals always do: demand that we conservatives and libertarians respect the law, but when I decision goes against them, ignore the case law, fight it in court, lose, make cosmetic changes and repeat the cycle.
This is nothing more than lawlessness. The MTA has already been told what their legal obligations are under the Bill of Rights. They need to stop denying the First Amendment rights of advertisers with whom they disagree.
May 21, 2012 at 2:02pm
Neither the kids nor the teacher got this right: In the first place, no credible source (and not even the WaPo) has verified that the Romney story is true. Romney denies it, as does the man’s family.
Second: 0bama actually bullied _dozens_ of girls (he certainly would not have bullied any boys.) But the girl appearing in one of his several autobiographies is not a real girl. She is a COMPOSITE of all the many girls he bullied.
December 28, 2011 at 1:54pm
The cookie sale is, in and of itself, an exercise in anti-capitalist indoctrination. [I say this as a three-time "Cookie Dad" whose garage was perennially filled with Girl Scout Cookies.] Why? Because it convinces the girls that the system is rigged against them. The mark-up on these cookies is enormous, and only about 14% of the money goes to the local Girls Scout group. The sale prizes amount to a commission of <1% of the gross. All overages have to be absorbed by the local Troop, meaning that any waste, excess order, or "odd" boxes of cookies which don't amount to a full case have to come out of the local Troop's "profits."
Typical liberal/prog outcomes: there's a lot of squawk about "community" and "working for the good of everyone," but in the final analysis, the Nomenklatura live off the labor of everyone lower down on the food chain.