Breakfast Scramble

Libtards against choice I, Boston Globe:

No surprise, then, that ADL takes a hard line against school-choice voucher programs, which give parents the wherewithal to rescue their children from failing public schools and enroll them in private schools instead. Since those private schools are often church-affiliated, ADL contended in an amicus brief the last time the Supreme Court took up the issue, vouchers have the unconstitutional effect of directing “government funding to religious schools for religious purposes.

Libtards against choice II, Thomas Sowell, New York Post:

One fashionable notion among some of the intel ligentsia is that old peo ple have “a duty to die,” rather than become a burden to others.

This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already Britain’s government-run medical system is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. It seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when US medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake: Letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

Liberals only favor choice when it means killing unborn babies.  Government provided health care is government rationed health care.

It is  not a Hispanic problem.   It is a border security problem, from Ruben Navarrette, RCP:

SAN DIEGO — Some states deal with Hispanic issues. Then there is Arizona, which has issues with Hispanics.

Consider what officials in the Grand Canyon State have been up to lately on various fronts in what seems a concerted effort to harass Hispanics, both immigrants and U.S. citizens.

See the video below and STFU.

Two chicks make Obama administration look dumb, video:

Hat tip: Jammie Wearing Fool.

Fagan Files, VDH,  Pajamas Media:

When a Senator Obama a while back weighed in on the ill-fated Harriet Miers, he quite logically predicated his skepticism on a dearth of publications (though I found that embarrassing at the time since Senator/Law Professor Obama was essentially without a record of scholarly work), and an absence of judicial experience—both legitimate concerns. So, of course, are we now to expect Obama to talk up his recent Supreme Court nominee Ms. Kagan, and ignore her relative lack of scholarly experience without a judicial past (sort of like being secretary of education without having taught anything)? Does the president, who as a senator voted to deny a court seat to Alito and Roberts, think Kagan is better qualified than either, and, if so, on what grounds—more scholarship, more judicial experience, a more diverse upbringing, intangible criteria like once recruiting Barack Obama?

You remember the old days, when Woody Allen used to be funny?

CANNES, France (AP) — Woody Allen has restated his support for fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who is in house arrest in connection with a 33-year-old sex scandal.

Allen said Polanski “was embarrassed by the whole thing,” ”has suffered” and “has paid his dues.” He said Polanski is “an artist and is a nice person” who “did something wrong and he paid for it.”

Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978 to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. He was taken into custody in September and is currently under house arrest in Gstaad, Switzerland.

Yet another reason not to see any more of Allen’s movies.