Death penalty questions.
"The Supreme Court's ruling allows California and 19 other states that permit execution of the mentally retarded to legally define retardation. The generally accepted clinical definition is someone having an IQ of about 70 or lower.
"

Well, it's the stupid criminals that get caught, or smarter criminals turn them in. How does this fit in with the popular Liberal opinion that the IQ test is a racist test, and thus blacks, er, African-Americans rather, score lower- making them retarded? Ok, this argument is going in circles and getting sillyer with each revolution. I should have known it was illogical from the beginning just by mentioning Liberal or Democrat or California.

We threw tea into Boston Harbor because of high taxes on tea. Now I suppose we should dress as Indians, um, ah I mean Native Americans, and throw tobacco into New York Harbor.

We really don't need Saudi Arabia. We already have these huge floating bases, called aircraft carriers, and enough Marines in a carrier battle group to take over Iraq's port provinces, establish a beachhead and begin construction of temporary airbases for the Air Force. The Army can jump troops in up north and get support from Turkey, though that's not necesary either.

Simply, we do not need any other nation in the Middle East to help us if we choose to eliminate whatever terrorist group or supporter suits our fancy.

Somebody has to, because NASA sure won't. And more people than just me should be complaining about it.

Free music, free books, now free research.

To quote Homer Simpson: "Doh!" Are global warming advocates getting caught in their own disinformation?

On Welfare. This is the part I like:
"In the welfare statist's world, no one is responsible for his own life. People's lives are shaped by social forces, not by their own choices. Because "society" makes people poor, in this view, "society" owes them handouts."

That's it, in a nutshell. It's not my fault, so government should pay for it. Meaning: rich people owe me a living.

Informational on Homeland Security Department. Jack Kelly is wrong, I fear. I can agree with many of his points, however, we don't need:
"... more Customs agents, Border Patrolmen and Coast Guardsmen. "
What we need is less restrictive policies and rules for the organizations these agents work in. We need them to be better able to perform their jobs, not a bureacracy to oversee their bureacracies. Typical of Washington: the way to fix a problem is to throw more money at it, not correct the errors.

I'm super confident in my government's ability to protect me from terrorists.
Not.

In France, and it's spreading, if you don't toe the government line on your ideas and beliefs, you will be outlawed. Next comes the thought police.

I believe I commented on this several weeks ago. Environmentalists don't want environmentally sound energy generators blocking their view. More of the same: "I don't care where, just not here."

Global Warming nonsense.