Free Republic

American officials have privately backed Pakistan's "Sharia law for peace" deal with Taliban militants in the Swat Valley despite publicly criticising it as a "negative development".

The good news: this Sharia haven is in Pakistan and not in our country. The bad news: it's still our Dear Leader's first month on the job - he has time for another Sharia haven. Might I suggest a moderate area, such as Buffalo, where the leading spokesman for Sharia is so moderate that he beheaded his own wife rather than other people's family members.

I sincerely hope this ruling is appealed and overturned. I fail to see how this was the transit agency's fault... assuming that such trains are like conventional trains which simply cannot stop on a dime.

That or slow all trains in the city to 5 mph so they have someone walk in front of the train to check for every drunk hobo and loser teen who might jump or fall in front of the train. I'd love to see these "compassionate" jurors riding impatiently as they experience the natural consequences of their choices.

Philip Morris was ordered by a jury to pay $8 million in damages to the widow of a smoker who died of lung cancer in a case that could set a standard for some 8,000 similar Florida lawsuits.

I hope the widow lives a long and healthy life ... but I also hope the appeals last longer than she does, and the same for her heirs. The jury has no legal right to hand over money based on a frivolous lawsuit. I don't smoke and never have, but I have a strong personal interest in this case: my interest is preserving the rule of law. The product is legal and always has been, and there was nothing "defective" or negligent about the cigarettes smoked by her husband, unlike, for example, the recent contaminated peanuts. The case should have been dismissed and the lawyer bringing the case fined for the frivolous waste of time. End of discussion.

Illinois Bill Would Require Gun Owners to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance

Let's try a few variants on that:

Illinois Bill Would Require News Media to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance (libel and slander are risks)
Illinois Bill Would Require those who worship to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance (they might offend someone in this PC world)
Illinois Bill Would Require those who petition the government to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance (to cover the potential for emotional distress from their petition)
Illinois Bill Would Require those who assemble in public to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance (again, people get hurt at rallies)

My suggestion: Illinois Bill Would Require politicians to Buy $1M in Liability Insurance to cover legal costs for the victims of unconstitutional bills.

Notice only white presidents on the list. Racists.

Yep. Racism is the only reason Obama isn't number one. He brought us Hope and Change, and what will probably become the Great Depression of 2009-2013 if he stimulates the economy any more. What more could we ask?

I researched solar power in detail, checking on whether it would make a reasonable back up power source for my home, and I decided even before this bailout that I didn’t trust Namaste Solar. I don’t do business with companies like that, and even if they reform (unlikely!), I’m still boycotting this company for life ... I’m boycotting all bailout companies permanently.

Will Obama's Bailout Plan Turn Out to Be a Dud?

Let's just say that I'd rather invest $770B with Bernard L. Madoff than $780B with the stimulus package. Besides the same chance of a return on investment, Madoff would do less harm and cost less for the same result.

In an unexpected twist to the economic crisis, several US states are weighing whether to abolish the death penalty as the execution process proves too great a drain on dwindling resources.

How about carrying out that penalty in a timely manner as a means of saving money and more importantly establishing justice?

When I see the flag behind Obama, I think of his views on my country. Overwhelming evidence suggests that he agrees with his mentor:

Is it selfish to have more than two children? [Greenie weenie nit wit alert.......]

Is it selfish to have less than two children? Are those parents of zero or one the spoiled yuppie types who want to save their income (or more likely their available credit) for European vacations with their only child or as childless perpetual teens?

I know my question is as dumb as theirs. Really, what's peculiar is that so many people want to make those decisions for others. I am proud of my children, all of them. I am almost as thrilled that some of the most pathetic liberals are opting out of the gene pool. I assume that people will make good decisions based on their needs and desires, and I would never, ever criticize the childbearing choices of someone who had a large family that they supported on their own.

U.S. Bancorp CEO Richard Davis said at a business leaders forum Tuesday. U.S. Bank was told, not asked, to participate in the program ...

If true, he needs to get his lawyers in court and get a judge to rule that this was not a valid contract. I would love to see U.S. Bancorp do it!

Me too. I started mine in 1770 with only one employee.... ME. 38 years later there are 35 people working there. But I just hocked my home to put more cash in to get thru this. Our business is good but the cash made a small cushion.. Got my comeupance when I found my 4 year old custom built home has lost 25% in its worth. I am guilty of not taking my share of the stimushit package.

I'll skip the questions on how it was running a business back in the first decades after the founding of our country. Thank you for not taking my tax dollars. I hope those Americans who love our country (what's left of it) will steer toward your business and boycott the corrupt companies that steal by taking bailout/TARP money.

How Smart Are You? ... The answer to that question depends on a few things but arguably the most important is access to information.

No. How smart you are depends far more on whether you base decisions on the information you have than on the amount of information. Dear Leader has almost unlimited information, but he ignores any facts that conflict with what he feels like he wants to do.

This was posted yesterday but this line seems to have been added: "West Allis Deputy Chief Rick Balistrieri said Tuesday's verdict will not change the way his officers respond to similar calls, noting they must assess all calls on a case-by-case basis, particularly when a gun is involved."

Translation: "We will continue arresting people for legal conduct." I assume he's asking for stimulus money to buy jackboots for his men as well (I'm generally in favor of law enforcement, but that comes to an end when they go beyond the law).

This woman should keep her dog inside for a while. I’m sure the Obama gestapo is every bit as formidable as Clinton’s.

"I'll get you, my pretty. And your little dog too!"

From Webster's Dictionary, proxy means, well, "substitute" data, as in "we pretend this is the real thing". So all of this 'science' begins on a creaky foundation. But then it miraculously transfigures itself in the conclusions, where the talk shifts to overturning "existing knowledge". Somewhere in that process, hidden from the public, some equation is happening that maps out as "Proxy A + Proxy B (and then a miracle happens) = scientific certainty."

To be fair, proxy data tends to produce reasonably accurate estimates of temperature, and the estimates can in some cases be confirmed from other information. It's not in the estimation but in the analysis of proxy data, actual data, and "corrected" data that they tend to leave the realm of science and enter creative belief systems. My impression, having read dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles using proxy data is that the numbers may actually be more accurate than the modern data sets with their questionable corrections and estimates.

One mother refused, and now says,"I voted for the wrong person."

I wonder what they'll dig up from her closet. Did she underpay taxes? Is she an unlicensed plumber? What secret does she most want kept that is about to be leaked to trash her?

It aims to help 4 million to 5 million "responsible homeowners" to refinance and another 3 million to 4 million homeowners by lowering the risk of imminent default with a $75 billion "homeowner stability initiative" that will help to reduce their monthly payments.

So, we're going to waste an average of $750 per family on rescuing irresponsible homeowners who bought homes that they should have known they couldn't afford? And that money comes from the taxpayers who lived within their means? It used to be that bad decisions carried a penalty. I can see what Obama meant when he promised "change"!

Exactly. My wife and I bought what we could afford, a very modest, forty year old, 1300 square foot house. We have never missed a mortgage payment and have never been delinquent on our taxes. And yet, some irresponsible lowlife buys a house way beyond his or her means, stops making mortgage payments, and GETS TO KEEP THAT HOUSE at a lower rate and obligation than what he or she originally signed on for! He or she is REWARDED for being irresponsible!

But at least you get your share of the pie too. They get the oversized house, and your tax dollars get to help make the payments. If they arrange the system differently, the mortgage companies get to write off the loss, with no opportunity to foreclose, which means that everyones mortgage rates will go up to adjust for the added risk. End result - ordinary, decent, hardworking, and honest conservatives still get to subsidize liberal losers who made irresponsible choices.

And Barack Obama promises to save or create four million jobs.

That's one promise he'll keep. There are 145 million jobs in this country, and I expect him to save about 4 million of them if he's given the power he wants.