The three laws:

1. A Republican may not injure a corporation, or, through inaction, allow a corporation to come to harm.

2. A Republican must obey the orders given it by corporations except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A Republican must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

What a bunch of crap. Republi-commies hate capitalism and business. They only love government monopolies which they can make money by regulating.

A young girl was going on a date.

Her grandmother said, "Sit here and let me tell
you about those young boys."

"He is going to try and kiss you, you are going
to like that, but don't let him do that.

He is going to try and feel your breast, you are
going to like that but don't let him do that.

But most important, he is going to try and get on
top of you to have his way with you. You are
going to like that, but don't let him do that.

It will disgrace the family."

With that bit of advice, the granddaughter went
on her date.

The next day she told grandma that her date went
just like she had predicted, "Grandma, I didn't
let him disgrace the family. When he tried, I just
turned over, got on top of him, and disgraced HIS
family..."

Granny fainted!

That's right. It is Bad Commie that DISGRACED republicans. Bad Commie had gay lesbian sex with republicoons and made THEM gay.

Check out the crimes of the filthy propagandists (like NYT and other communist baghdad bob type organs of the commie unhappening party):

But the real problem here, to paraphrase a Massachusetts politician who ran for President a few elections back, is not ideology, but competence.

The press's neutrality has been revealed as a fiction. That might not matter if they were still better at what they did than anyone else. After all, what about all the fact-checking, the professionalism, the editors meticulously ensuring fairness and accuracy?

Yeah. What about 'em? It's tempting to point to Jayson Blair, or any of the other media scandals of the past couple of years. (Or, for that matter, to Walter Duranty). But the problem goes even deeper than that. Beyond these major scandals, a combination of laziness, bias, and complacency haunts reporting on all sorts of subjects.

and another expose:

What's even more laughable is those in the press (like the amazingly pompous and inane New York Times) who are now tut-tutting about how awful it is that these independently funded groups are allowed to be heard. Oh, what is it you're afraid of, Mr. News Editor Man? That you don't get to be the gatekeeper of what people are allowed to hear about anymore?
...
But here's the bigger story: The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe are no longer the arbiters of what's important and what's not, of whose criticisms of our politicians will be heard and whose will be ignored.

The Internet has detected the mainstream media as a form of censorship and simply routed around them.

We need excellent reporting like this to turn back the foul smelling tide of putrid communism:

The John Ashcroft Institute for excellence in Education has combined Social Studies, Political Science and History into one single study program - Bushtory. Teachers will be teaching students that the two party systems were fraught with corruption, deceit and mismanagement. A single party system has removed the corruption and replaced it with graft.

Maybe Baghdad Bob was really a NYT reporter. After all, he is working for Kerry now:

Q. Changing the subject a little, John Kerry admits, in broad outlines, that the SwiftVets' account of the sampan engagement is true. He admits that an unarmed woman and infant child were shot to death on the sampan. And yet John Kerry's official after-action-report -- submitted to the Navy as the officially sworn account of events -- makes no such mention of the killed woman and child. This would seem to be an intentional omission, almost certainly unethical, and likely illegal. How do you respond?

A. Lies, lies, outrageous lies concocted by the Jew minions of the Jew Satan!!! John Forbes Kerry scored a magnificent victory over that unarmed woman and infant! Let the Rolls of Honor kept by Mohammed himself record that John Forbes Kerry acted like a Lion of Baghdad when he shot that child! It made a threatening motion.

Q. What sort of threatening motion?

A. It blew a spit-bubble, and then it shat itself.

Q. Is that really threatening?

A. Have you ever changed a diaper? You must deal firmly with these little stinkers. Next question.

In other news, Osama bin Laden the democrat was of-course completely correct to destroy filthy communist airplanes and everything for which they stand, as described here:

# Why are you suing the government over ID on airplanes?

There are two central issues I'm trying to explore.

The right to travel, also known as the right of free movement, is essential in every free society. It's a crime to interfere with anyone's right of free movement (we call it kidnapping, among other things). It's one of those things that is so foundational that everyone forgets about it until the bad-guys have eaten it away. The bad-guys in the U.S. Government have eaten it away for car drivers, for airline passengers, for long-distance trains, for intercity buses, and for cruise ships. They haven't gotten around to feet and bicycles yet, but the trend is quite clear. I'm suing so the courts will examine this trend. I hope they will find that the government's unilateral action in eliminating free movement of people without ID cards goes way too far.

The right of anonymity, also sometimes known as the right to be left alone, has strong foundational roots too. It leads directly into "innocent until proven guilty" and "no bills of attainder", which prevents governments from harassing people they merely dislike. It leads directly into the right to make politically unpopular speeches and protests, which is the only fragile way to prevent violent uprisings among those who have complaints about how society is run. (If we punish people merely for complaining, others who share their complaints will learn to shoot first and complain later. Complaining anonymously is one way to be heard but not punished.) We can walk the streets without permission and without "your papers please" because we have the right to be anonymous. Out of fear and ignorance among the populace, and laziness among police, most people now assume that they must show identity papers on request of any cop, government official, or even rent-a-cops. What was once, and is still legally, a right, is rapidly becoming a casualty in practice. I am hoping that the courts will agree with me that the government can't e.g. require me to reveal my identity because I'm traveling to give a speech. It's well accepted that they can't make me reveal my identity at the speech itself, and also well accepted that they can't seek to prevent me from speaking or from traveling.

# What is this I hear about secret laws in airports?

When the government violates fundamental rights, they tend to surround themselves with procedural tricks designed to keep them from getting caught. The easiest way to make tyrranical rules is to simply not publish the rules, just punish anybody who doesn't follow them to your satisfaction. The FAA/TSA bureaucrats, in collaboration with anti-terrorism people in the White House, have kept slipping little phrases and trick references into Congressional laws that purport to let them do just that. For example, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that every regulation be published, and says that any unpublished regulation is null and void; but another law passed just recently says that FAA/TSA can issue regulations "notwithstanding title 552 of section 5", i.e. the FOIA.

So, the "rule" that says you have to show ID in airports is plastered all over on signs, but if you try to look up the real rule, it doesn't exist. A FOIA request for it will get you a letter saying that they have a copy, but they don't have to give it to you because of such-and-such a statute. Congress passed that statute to safeguard government research on defenses against terrorism, but the bureaucrats have hacked it so that they think they can order the traveling public to do any damn thing and never publish the rule.

My case argues that this is unconstitutional, because it violates "due process of law". A basic principle of due process, which is guaranteed in the constitution, is that you have a chance to read the law (including the regulations that give all the details) before it can be applied to you. Another principle is that the law has to be sufficiently clearly written that you can tell illegal actions from legal ones. A law you can't see doesn't clearly tell you the line between legal and illegal acts.

So, it turns out I was told in one airport that you can fly without a government-issued photo ID, if you have two IDs and one of them is government issued. The signs don't tell you this. There's no regulation you can read that tells you this. You have to try it and see if they let you do it. I know someone who actually flew without any ID at all, after leaving her wallet at home. She got no hassle at all, no extra searches, no nothing. So how can they apply a "no government photo ID, no flying" rule to me, but not her? By keeping the details of the law secret, that's how. It even worked at the District Court; our judge decided that if she couldn't see the law then it must by definition be constitutional (she ruled that I had no possible way to show it is unconstitutional). Let's hope the Ninth Circuit is not as easily fooled.

From now on, I'm just going to do EXACTLY what Osama bin Laden the democrat would do. What would Osama do? WWOD? See - that almost spells WMD.

Next episode - Guess what happens?
You guessed it!!!

COMMIES GET STABBED!
-posted by Bad Commie @ 6:57 PM