The Jim of the United States

Archive for the ‘Jim’s Gems (Click of the Day)’ Category


Posted by TheJOTUS on July 12, 2008

It’s nice the Republicans bring this out now.  Really, it is.  But this is something that should have been done years ago when THEY had control of both houses:



Posted in Energy, Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »

Good For The Goose, Not So much For The Gander

Posted by TheJOTUS on June 3, 2008

It appears the Vice President is in some hot water over some remarks he made about West Virginia.  West Virginia Govenor Joe Manchin, a Democrat, demanded an apology and nearly ran over women and children to release this statement:

I truly cannot believe that any vice president of the United States, regardless of their political affiliation, would make such a derogatory statement about my state or any state for that matter.”

So I guess you need to be an esteemed stand-up comic, late night talk show host or a hollywood writer to take shots at hayseeds from the south?  Indeed. 

But it gets better.  Former Klan member, Senator Robert Byrd, had this to say:

for a vice president to openly display “such contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen” was an insult to all Americans.

The irony is almost laughable–nay–is laughable.  A former Klan member condemns the Veep’s alledged “contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen.”  Now that is rich…

Posted in Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »

Isn’t This Ironic

Posted by TheJOTUS on April 11, 2008

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard since over-hearing KU earned their championship.  I know, I know it’s absurd.  But I think this story trumps it.  Seriously folks, you can’t make this stuff up:

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Call it an eco-parable: one Prius-driving couple takes pride in their eight redwoods, the first of them planted over a decade ago. Their electric-car-driving neighbors take pride in their rooftop solar panels, installed five years after the first trees were planted.

This redwood tree was pruned to reduce the shade cast on solar panels in a neighbor’s yard.

Trees — redwoods, live oaks or blossoming fruit trees — are usually considered sturdy citizens of the sun-swept peninsula south of San Francisco, not criminal elements. But under a 1978 state law protecting homeowners’ investment in rooftop solar panels, trees that impede solar panels’ access to the sun can be deemed a nuisance and their owners fined up to $1,000 a day. The Solar Shade Act was a curiosity until late last year, when a dispute over the eight redwoods(a k a Tree No. 1, Tree No. 2, Tree No. 3, etc.) ended up in Santa Clara County criminal court.


Posted in Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri | Leave a Comment »

The Pine Tar Incident

Posted by TheJOTUS on April 7, 2008

Tomorrow is the Royals home opener against the hated Yankees.  Well, at least I hate them.  So I thought I would post a memory of a rather famous Royals incident some 24 years ago.  The Pine Tar Incident–a game legendary not only amongst baseball historians, but also amongst legal scholars.

Playing at New York’s Yankee Stadium on July 24, 1983, with the Kansas City Royals trailing 4-3 and two outs in the top of the ninth inning, Hall of Fame third baseman George Brett hit a pitch from Yankee reliever Rich “Goose” Gossage for a two-run home run, seemingly giving the Royals a 5-4 lead. As Brett crossed home plate, Yankees manager Billy Martin approached umpire Tim McClelland and requested that Brett’s bat be examined for an illegal amount of pine tar. With Brett watching from the dugout, McClelland measured the bat against the width of home plate and determined the amount of pine tar on Brett’s bat exceeded the amount allowed by Rule 1.10(b) of the Major League Baseball rule book. The umpire crew called Brett out, and an irate Brett ran onto the field where he was ejected. The game was declared over.

After the game, Royals management appealed the umpire crew’s ruling to American League president Lee MacPhail, who overturned the umpire’s decision and ordered the remainder of the game replayed, with Brett’s home run allowed. In allowing Brett’s home run, MacPhail ruled that the amount of pine tar on Brett’s bat did not affect the distance of the home run, and that any challenge to the amount of pine tar on Brett’s bat should have been brought, if at all, prior to Gossage throwing his first pitch.

Although Lee MacPhail is no Judge Cardozo, his ruling is almost as widely used in law school classrooms. In his heralded civil procedure course, Michigan law professor Richard Friedman often analogizes Billy Martin’s decision to challenge Brett’s excessive pine tar only after he hit his home run to an attorney that would argue for a court to dismiss a case for lack of personal jurisdiction, or improper venue, only after an answer to a complaint had been filed. Many other law professors use the Pine Tar case to introduce the difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law.

As a sports enthusiast (albeit a New Yorker), I look back at Lee MacPhail’s ruling and believe he made the right call. In some respects, however, MacPhail’s ruling may not have gone far enough. In the original game, umpire Tim McClelland ejected George Brett for arguing about the original pine tar ruling. Given that the game was replayed from the point in time of Brett’s home run, and arguably from before Brett was ejected, Brett’s subsequent ejection should have been erased from the game record, along with his being called out. Nevertheless, when the Pine Tar game was continued on 8/18, Brett was deemed ineligible to play, and the rarely used Royals backup Greg Pryor replaced Brett at third base. (As a side note, the Yankees resumed the game with first baseman Don Mattingly playing second base, and pitcher Ron Guidry in center field).

As a final point of note, when the Pine Tar game resumed, Yankees manager Billy Martin again challenged Brett’s home run on the grounds that Brett had not touched all the bases, maintaining that there was no way for the current umpires (who were a different crew from those who worked the earlier part of this game) to resolve his contention. The new umpire crew, however, was prepared for Martin’s challenge, as umpire Davey Phillips produced a legal affidavit signed by the July 24 umpires, which stated that Brett had indeed touched all of the bases.

Ultimately, the Royals went on to win the Pine Tar game 5-to-4, thanks to Brett’s controversial home run. And, as for sports lawyers, the outcome was indoctrinated in our own unique world of case law.

Posted in Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri | Leave a Comment »

Now On Sale: The “Typical White Person” t-shirt

Posted by TheJOTUS on March 21, 2008

I found this on Michelle Malkin’s website.  The “Typical White Person” t-shirt is available–referencing Obama’s remarks about his poor maligned grandmother.


There is another one via Instapundit.  Indeed capitalism is good.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Jim's Gems (Click of the Day) | Leave a Comment »

News Coverage And The Iraq War

Posted by TheJOTUS on March 18, 2008

veterans_0314.jpgBelow is an article by the Media Research Center on the Iraq war and the media’s coverage of it–or lack thereof.  It is hard to believe it has been 5 years since we led an International Coalition of Troops into Iraq and mowed through Saddam like Ted Kennedy through a bottle of Vodka, but I digress:

Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success

Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the “peace” movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic “middle class” demonstrators.

Combat Coverage. Soon after coalition troops liberated Iraq, MRC reviewers awarded decent grades to most of the TV networks, praising the fine, factual reports presented by the embedded journalists who rode along with U.S. troops. But poor marks went to TV reporters stationed in Baghdad, who often passed along the enemy’s unverified propaganda. Worst of all was MSNBC’s Peter Arnett, who reported lies about U.S. use of “cluster bombs” against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video.

Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In less than two weeks during the spring of 2004, NBC alone pumped out 58 stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story, but in the preceding year devoted only five stories to the discovery of mass graves of Saddam’s victims. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine “massacre” at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. During the preceding five years, those networks gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America’s highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror.

Mostly Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion’s share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined.

Little Time for Good News. The last six months have seen a massive reduction in insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties. But the three broadcast evening newscasts have shown little interest in the good news, with coverage dropping every month since September.

Posted in Conservatives in the Know, Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »

Lost Your Job? Apply At The Fed!!

Posted by TheJOTUS on March 13, 2008

big_government.jpgIn the era of a Big Government there was this little nugget of potpourri from The New York Times:

U.S. Payrolls Unexpectedly Fall for Second Straight Month

Published: March 7, 2008

Filed at 8:31 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON, March 7 (Reuters) – U.S. employers cut payrolls for a second straight month during February, slashing 63,000 jobs for the biggest monthly job decline in nearly five years as the labor market weakened steadily, a government report on Friday showed.

 But there is good news!!!!!!!!

One bright spot was that the government added 38,000 jobs in February on top of 4,000 new-hires in January.
Does anybody else see something wrong with this?? 

Posted in Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »

B. Hussein Obama

Posted by TheJOTUS on March 6, 2008

obamaosama2.jpg This from an artcicle in the Chicago Tribune back on September 25, 2004.  Back when B. Hussein Obama was just a lowly State Senator from Illinois:

This on Iran and Pakistan

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.

On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

And this on gay marriage

Earlier Friday, Obama clarified his position on gay marriage after several days of criticism from [GOP Senate candidate Alan] Keyes on the issue. Keyes, a vehement opponent of gay marriage who has called homosexuals “selfish hedonists,” charged during a campaign swing Downstate this week that Obama favors gay marriage.

But during a taping of WBBM-AM’s “At Issue,” Obama said that his Christian faith dictates that marriage should be between a man and woman.

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,” Obama said.

So Mr. Obama would attack Iran if they continue with their nuclear program unabated?  He would also even have the US invade Pakistan and take away their nuclear weapons if Mr. Musharraf were to be overthrown?  Both sound very much like the kind of “pre-emptive warfare” he now so eloquently and adamantly attacks.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s remarks that “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” might not play so well with the homosexual community he is now courting.

But, again, this is from way back in 2004, when Mr. Obama was merely a lowly Illinois state senator.  Not the “rockstar” being he is today.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »


Posted by TheJOTUS on February 22, 2008

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »

Motor City Madman Speaks The Truth

Posted by TheJOTUS on February 17, 2008

I am a conservative because the conservative philosophy drives people to be self-reliant, independent and hungry to achieve their “American Dream,” whatever it may be, by being the best that they can be. That’s the America I know and the America I want my great-grandchildren to know.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

I am not a Republican. I am a conservative.

Yes, Scarlet, even an over-the-top, uppity, defiant MotorCity MadMan guitar wrangler can be a real conservative. Get used to it.

Claiming to be a Republican signifies allegiance to a political party.

Conservatives are independent, rugged individuals who believe the “American Dream” is achieved through hard work, sacrifice and an unrelenting commitment to excellence.

Being a conservative denotes a commitment to a self-evident, truth-based philosophy and disciplined lifestyle.

A conservative believes in and fights for limited government and individual rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In today’s big-government juggernaut, it is truly progressive to be a conservative.

We detest able-bodied bloodsuckers who live off the sweat equity of others by refusing to be equal to those who try harder.

The base of the Republican Party used to be composed of staunch conservatives who championed limited government. Though the Republican tent was large and accommodating, there was no room for people who did not, at a minimum, subscribe to limited government and lower, dare I say, fairer taxes.

In a quest to achieve political victories, the Republican Party seemingly has abandoned its conservative base in search of independent voters. Conservatives have quietly been marginalized by the Republican Party. Yet the Republican Party believes conservatives will rally around the Republican Party at the ballot box because conservatives have no other place to go — a mistaken assumption.

I speak to conservatives on a daily basis who are discouraged at the direction the country has taken under Republican control. These disgusted conservatives all sing the same heart-breaking blues song: “The Republican Party has squandered too many opportunities to promote conservative values.”

American characteristics

America has a great government, but America did not become great because of its government. Increased government involvement and programs do not lead to more independence, freedom or opportunity. They result in fewer of these uniquely American characteristics.


Conservatives do not despise government but believe government has poured over its banks and flooded into all areas of our lives, businesses and social structures to the extent that we are drowning in government red tape.

Conservatives believe less government is best government. We have witnessed over the past 40 years how government intervention and social experiments to the tune of trillions of tax dollars have literally destroyed lives and entire communities.

Surely no one wants to drink from that poisoned well again. Government-controlled or mandated health care, anyone?

The political buzzword of the presidential primary is “change.” Wouldn’t it be enlightening and refreshing to hear the Republican candidates talk about conservative change?

How about a question to the candidates on what federal government programs and agencies could and should be eliminated?

How about a question on how they would reduce the overall size of the federal government by 25 percent during their presidency?

How about a question to the candidates about what they will do to expand individual freedom and liberty?

How about a question asking each of the candidates if he would define himself as a conservative or a Republican?

Liberals detest conservative values. Liberals believe more government is the answer to all our problems. When illogical liberal ideas fail as they do time and time again, liberals then champion even larger government programs.


Liberals are socialists — bloodsuckers looking for a free handout. “Never trust a liberal” is my mantra.

Posted in Conservatives in the Know, Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri | Leave a Comment »