Moore sued by Iraqi war veteran for lying in mockumentary

Mikie "Jabba the Hutt" Moore pleased throngs of moonbats worldwide with his paranoia-filled lie-ridden mockumentary "Fahrenheit 9/11." Reams of information has since been released showing where Moore was, shall we say, less than honest.

Enter Sgt. Peter Damon. Moore shamelessly attempted to portray him as anti-war in the film, despite the inconvenient fact that Damon is nothing of the sort. He's fighting mad, and he's going after the portly producer for damages. From The State:

A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.

In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."
...
"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the President, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," Damon says in his lawsuit.
...
"It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said.

Wow...$85 million? That's a lot of Whoppers, Mikie...though not nearly as many whoppers as you told in your flick.

But hey...Mikie and his ilk "support the troops", right?

As usual, Dems' loss is really a win in disguise

Whenever Democrats lose these days, they claim that their loss was a "moral victory" of some sort, as if moral victories translate to picking up seats in elected office. Recall the Ohio moonbat Paul Hackett, who "narrowly" lost a House election to Jean Schmidt in her GOP-heavy district?

Listening to Deanics across the nation, you'd have thought that Hackett really won. Hackett was instantly a left and MSM (pardon the redundancy) darling, crowned the unofficial rising star in the Democrap party. His future was so bright that he...lost in the U.S. Senate primary to fellow moonbat Sherrod Brown. So much for that star, huh? He burned out faster than Bill Clinton after his honeymoon with Hillary.

Well, the left is at it again. Observe:

Next Tuesday, voters in the San Diego area will head to the polls in a special election to replace Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican who is serving time in prison for bribery.

Democrats say no matter what happens, they've won - because Democrat candidate Francine Busby "has put Republicans on the ropes in a district they bragged was theirs for the taking."

In an email message to supporters, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said that Democrats are setting the tone in a majority Republican district -- "forcing Republicans to frantically spend millions of dollars to defend themselves."

And no matter what happens next Tuesday, "If Francine even comes close, Democrats will send a wave of panic through Republicans everywhere," the DCCC said.

A "wave of panic"? Of course..."look at us, we keep losing! Watch out, you bastard Republicans! We're on a roll!" If Republicans have to "frantically spend millions of dollars", does it matter that they have millions of dollars to spend that Dean has been unable to raise for the Democraps?

This part is rich:

It said it is targeting Republican districts across the country, and that includes running advertisements on Christian radio stations "holding Republicans feet to the fire for trying to privatize Social Security."

Rumor has it that one of their advisors told them that about 90% of the people in America believed in that "God" fellow, and that it might be a good idea to try and reason with them. Fortunately for the Dems, they didn't have Dean opening his mouth and insulting them like he usually does.

To quote the late Dale Earnhart: "Second place is the first loser." In the warped minds of Democraps, it's a win. That must be a new form of affirmative action for the left: extra points for losing. Fortunately, elections aren't graded on a curve.

Corruption: More in common?

Hat tip to Lee for passing this on. No doubt certain visitors will fail to catch the punch line.

But I thought it was only the GOP who was corrupt?

"Culture of corruption" strikes Reid...again

It was one thing for Harry Reid (Hypocrite-NV) to write letters on behalf of Abramoff clients while criticizing the GOP for accepting donations and gifts from the same Abramoff. This, however, is pretty darned rich. From the Washington comPost:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

It seems unethical, or at the very least, unsavory, to accept gifts from someone who has a vested interest how you intend to vote on their pet issue. As a matter of fact...:

Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.

"Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence, or elicit favorable official action," the Senate ethics manual states. It cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions.

"Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided," the manual states.

Keep in mind that I did get a TN public school education, but despite that, I can read reasonably well...and nowhere do I happen to see where the Senate rules apply to Republicans only. If someone can point that out to me, I would greatly appreciate it.

So how did a couple of Republican Senators handle the situation?

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.

The article goes on to mention Reid's connection with Abramoff clients, and how Reid used his office and power to act on behalf of said Abramoff clients. Reid, however, gets a bit defensive about these things:

Reid defended his actions, stating he would never change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former staffer turned lobbyist.

"People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in. I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose," he said.

In other words, when Reid accepts gifts from or acts on behalf of lobbyists or their clients, it's just a coincidence...after all, he "just so happened" to already have his beliefs in place and was acting accordingly. Funny that he never attributes such a similar steadfast sense of fairness, conviction, and advocacy to one's beliefs to his Republican counterparts, huh?

"They're corrupt for doing the things that I do, because unlike them, I actually do these things out of conscience. They don't!" Got it. Thanks for the clarification, Harry.

Memorial Day

I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Memorial Day, and to thank everyone for taking a moment to honor America's fallen heroes for paying the ultimate price to secure our freedom. God bless our soldiers past and present, and God bless those who have died in action, as well as their families.

I'd also like to give a big middle finger to Fred Phelps, the rabidly hateful anti-gay "Baptist" in Topeka, Kansas. It looks like your slimy ilk just took one in the posterior, an appropriate metaphor considering your "church's" rasion d'etre. From the AP:

President Bush, marking Memorial Day with a speech paying tribute to fighting men and women lost in war, signed into law Monday a bill that keeps demonstrators from disrupting military funerals.

In advance of his speech and a wreath-laying at America's most hallowed burial ground for military heroes, Bush signed the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act." This was largely in response to the activities of a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming the deaths symbolized God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The new law bars protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a national cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery. This restriction applies an hour before until an hour after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

A couple of observations about the story:

1. I somewhat resent the title of it: "Bush bans protests at military funerals". Technically, Bush banned nothing. He signed into law a ban that Congress implemented. I'm nitpicking, I know, but words mean things, and I think that the AP writer Nedra Pickler (not always known for her impartiality) frames this to look like Bush did it all by himself or at his initiative: "Bush bans protest!"

2. I do have a slight problem with the law, in that it restricts speech that is universally found to be unpopular...which is kind of the reason for the First Amendment. However, having said that...

3. The courts have found that laws keeping anti-abortion protestors X feet from abortion clinics are constitutional, since their actual right to protest hasn't been removed. If anti-abortion protestors can be kept a certain distance from clinics (which, by the way, I support), then I don't see why the same can't be done to some anti-gay bigots who want to harrass fallen soldiers' families. They can still spew their bile, just not too close to the funeral.

Get the KY and grab the ankles, Mr. Phelps...then go call your ACLU attorney.

Senate vote: "Let's get Mexico's approval to build a fence or wall!"

I'm wondering if there's been an al Qaeda attack on the DC water supply, because our elected officials have seemingly lost their damned minds these days. Chris "Waitress Sandwich" Dodd (D-CT) added an amendment to the Senate immigration bill:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

The amendment passed, 56-41. The treasonous Republicans who voted for this crap are as follows:

Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Chafee, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Collins, McCain, Specter, Stevens, Warner, Martinez, Murkowski, Snowe and Voinovich.

I'm calling my two senators (Martinez and Nelson) who both voted FOR this travesty and ask them why they think it's a good idea that we get the approval of another country to defend our borders and sovereignty. If your Senators voted with the aforementioned #ssholes, I implore you to call them, too. Also, contact your House members and ask them to stop the Senate bill dead in its tracks. The House is our last hope for common sense.

We acquiesce to Mexico today, and tomorrow we'll do the same with the United Nations!

Galloway: "Murdering Blair would be justified"

George Galloway, the terrorist-friendly dhimmi serving in Britain's parliament, thinks offing Tony Blair would be A-OK with him and his Islamofascist buddies. From across the pond:

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. ...

Galloway's party is the "Respect Party", which apparently does not mean that respect for your countryman is to be expected. Nope, only respect for the very people that want him and his fellow Brits killed is to be extended. Maybe this comic strip from last year can explain the folly of Galloway's dhimmitude:

Why Congress fears "English as primary language"

ACLU against free speech for its board members

The irony here is way too rich! Get a load of this:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which prides itself on its defense of free speech, is considering new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization.

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals. The reason?

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the ACLU adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Translation: "Free speech is cool, so long as it doesn't cost the ACLU money! If it does, then shut the hell up!" How does that sit well with others?

Some former board members were appalled by the proposals, the New York Times reports.

Nat Hentoff, a writer and former ACLU board member, declared:

"For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the ACLU exists.”
Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University and another former board member, said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent.

"It sets up a framework for punitive action,” she told the Times. The proposals state that "a director may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU board or staff."

This defense of the policy is laughable:

But Wendy Kaminer, a board member who has been critical of some decisions made by the organization's leadership, pointed out: "If you disagree with a policy position, you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position."

Uh...yeah! I'd be critical of anyone who purports to be a proponent of free speech who then subsequently tries to stifle said speech! Ms. Kaminer seems to imply that not only is it wrong to exercise First Amendment rights if it costs the ACLU money, but it is equally wrong to exercise First Amendment rights if it hurts the ACLU leadership's feelings or gives said leadership a figurative "black eye."

Holy shizit...I may have just officially heard it all!

Clinton to eulogize Bentsen at funeral

Former Senator, Treasury Secretary, and 1988 V.P. candidate Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) passed away a couple of days ago. I pray that his family finds the strength to cope with their loss. My limited knowledge of the guy tells me that he was a fine man who just had a very different political ideology than I do. Rest in peace, sir.

Anyway, now it looks like Bubba is going to eulogize Bentsen at his funeral. I sure hope the Bentsen family knows what they're doing. After all, Bubba has a bad habit of yukking it up at funerals (see Ron Brown's funeral):

"So I said, 'Rectum? It damned near killed him!' HAHAHAHA! That one cracks me up every time!"

"Oh, sh#t! Didn't see the camera! Uh...'BOO-HOO-HOO-HOO!'"

Hastert under investigation in bribery scandal?

Interesting situation here. ABC News is reporting that House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is being investigated for his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal (bribery, perhaps?). However, the Dept. of Justice says that no such investigation is occurring.

If ABC News is correct, then I think it's safe to say that Hastert's beef with the William Jefferson bribery investigation has jack sh#t to do with Hastert's fidelity to the Constitution, and has everything to do with self-preservation and fear of being similarly vulnerable. Instapundit comes to the same conclusion.

If ABC News is wrong, then I suspect that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes have been hired by the network! ABC News stands by their story and makes several anonymous references to "officials" and "law enforcement sources", which is great reason to be suspicious of the validity of the story.

Gore has his own "Inconvenient Truth"

File this under "Good enough for me, but not for thee", which is typical of the left:

As former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary on global warming fears debuts today, a new video from the Competitive Enterprise Institute tracks Gore’s own “carbon footprint.” CEI’s 70-second video points out that Gore himself is a big user of the hydrocarbon fuels that produce carbon dioxide when combusted.

Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” asks, "Are you willing to change the way you live?" The Gore documentary and new book of the same name go on to suggest ways that people can reduce their carbon footprint, yet Mr. Gore has clearly not taken his own message to heart. He even says in the documentary that he has given his global warming Power Point slide show more than 1,000 times all around the world.

The CEI video, which may be viewed at: http://streams.cei.org/, includes footage of Gore and his constant air travel with two CO2 meters running at the bottom of the page that compare Gore’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with those of an average person.

"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,” said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.

But hey, at least he walked to his movie's premiere, right? That short jaunt should offset the tons of fuel he burns while jetsetting across the world to protest his country's consumption of...fossil fuels?

Pic of the day

Endorsed by William Jefferson, I'm told.

"bin Laden: Moussaoui Not Linked to 9/11"

For those of you on the left, 9/11 refers to Sept. 11, 2001, which was a day that 3,000+ innocent Americans were slaughtered on our own soil by Islamic terrorists. Feel free to Google it, if need be.

Anywho, from the AP:

Osama bin Laden purportedly said in an audio tape Tuesday that Zacarias Moussaoui - the only person convicted in the U.S. for the Sept. 11 attacks - had nothing to do with the operation.

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet.

"I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

Two observations:

1. Shortly after 9/11, the Taliban and bin Laden both claimed that OBL didn't have anything to do with the attacks. OBL praised them, but said he wasn't involved. Shortly thereafter, he admitted that he was. An Islamic terrorist...a liar? Who knew??

2. In light of the aforementioned lie (and scores of other lies told by OBL and other al Qaeda camelhumpers), are we to take the madman (for those of you on the left, that would be bin Laden and not George Bush) at his word? Because it would make the administration look bad for convicting the wrong guy, the left may be tempted to take OBL's word for it. However, you'll have to forgive me for reflexively dismissing anything that the filthy animal (for those of you on the left, that would be bin Laden and not George Bush) has to say.

Quote of the day

Hat tip to resident commenter Lee for bringing this to my attention. Observe:

Reba McEntire, hosting the show for an eighth time, also took a shot at country music's newest outlaws, the Dixie Chicks.

"I don't know why I was so nervous about hosting this show this year," she said. "If the Dixie Chicks can sing with their foot in their mouths, surely I can host this sucker."

Careful, Reba! The Ditzy Twits might consider you too "uncool" for not "getting it" and may not want their little-sold CD to be in the same CD player as your CD's!

Another corrupt William Jefferson?

This time, the corrupt William Jefferson isn't the former president William Jefferson Clinton. No, it's Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) from the "Chocolate City", aka New Orleans. He says he won't resign and will run for re-election this year. Hey, if Nagin can win re-election in the city that he bungled so badly, Jefferson is a shoo-in to keep his job...provided he doesn't go to jail.

So what has he done?

A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer.

At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa.

As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching,'" according to the affidavit. ...

As for the $100,000, the government says Jefferson got the money in a leather briefcase last July 30 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington. The plan was for the lawmaker to use the cash to bribe a high-ranking Nigerian official — the name is blacked out in the court document — to ensure the success of a business deal in that country, the affidavit said.

All but $10,000 was recovered on Aug. 3 when the FBI searched Jefferson's home in Washington. The money was stuffed in his freezer, wrapped in $10,000 packs and concealed in food containers and aluminum foil...

Two of Jefferson's associates have pleaded guilty to bribery-related charges in federal court in Alexandria. One, businessman Vernon Jackson of Louisville, Ky., admitted paying more than $400,000 in bribes to the lawmaker in exchange for his help securing business deals for Jackson's telecommunications company in Nigeria and other African countries.

The new details about the case emerged after federal agents searched Jefferson's congressional office on Capitol Hill Saturday night and Sunday. The nearly 100-page affidavit for a search warrant, made public Sunday with large portions blacked out, spells out much of the evidence so far.

The document includes excerpts of conversations between Jefferson and an unidentified business executive from northern Virginia. She agreed to wear a wire after she approached the FBI with complaints that Jefferson and an associate had ripped her off in a business deal.

Jefferson's lawyer, Robert Trout, contended that the prosecutors' disclosure was "part of a public relations agenda and an attempt to embarrass Congressman Jefferson. The affidavit itself is just one side of the story which has not been tested in court," Trout said in a statement.

The affidavit says Jefferson is caught on videotape at the Ritz-Carlton as he takes a reddish-brown briefcase from the trunk of the informant's car, slips it into a cloth bag, puts the bag into his 1990 Lincoln Town Car and drives away.

The $100 bills in the suitcase had the same serial numbers as those found in Jefferson's freezer...

By the way, the Washington comPost headline? "FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned."

How's this for bipartisan Congressional arrogance?

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. (It's a breach of separation of powers for law enforcement to actually ENFORCE the laws that the rest of us have to live by? What, Congress is exempt? - Ed.)
...
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

Wow...just "Wow!" Listen to Hastert bitch about "How dare DOJ successfully prosecute corruption! I mean, with search warrants and everything!" This tells me that maybe the corruption that we've always known is rampant in D.C. runs so deeply and is so endemic that members of both parties are nervous that they, too, could be found out one day!

Tell me again why the GOP doesn't deserve to lose in November?

Ditzy Twits not getting the love

Three years after the former country superstars opened their cakeholes and imperiled their careers, the repercussions are still being felt by the Ditzy Twits. From UPI:

It appears the war U.S. country radio stations mounted against the politically outspoken Dixie Chicks has not abated in the least.

The band is promoting "Taking the Long Way," its first album since Natalie Maines told a London audience in 2003 she was ashamed to be from the same state as U.S. President George Bush. The comment sparked a radio boycott of the group's music.

Although the album hits stores Tuesday, the first two singles from the album are not getting widespread airplay, Billboard.com reported Monday.

The first single, "Not Ready to Make Nice," only peaked at No. 36 on the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart and the second single, "Everybody Knows," is moving downward after its peak at No. 48.

WKIS FM in Miami reported it pulled "Not Ready to Make Nice" due to listener complaints after only one week.

The program director at KUBL/KKAT in Salt Lake City told Billboard he was angered by its "self-indulgent and selfish lyrics."

Neither the Chicks or their label, Columbia Records, would speak to Billboard for its article.

The aforementioned single, "Not Ready to Make Nice", is an unrepentant song that thumbs the Twits' noses at the world. Such an attitude was displayed in a recent interview (just before the album's release):

For band member Martie Maguire, the controversy was a blessing in disguise.

"I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."

Something tells me that their record label, Columbia Records, couldn't disagree more with such a stupid, arrogant, and condescending statement. Plus, if the current lack of playing time is an indicator of what can be expected, then Maguire et al will get their wish for a smaller fan base. I don't know about you, but if I'm in the entertainment biz, I'd just as soon receive money from the "uncool" people who don't "get it" as from the "really cool people who get it." Rumor has it that both groups' dollars are equally green, but I have not personally verified this.

The Ditzy Twits are free to say and sing whatever the hell they like. The American consumer is equally free to voice his/her displeasure by spending his/her dollars buying less ignorant and offensive artists' music. Ain't freedom grand?

Clinton: Global "warming" more of a threat than terrorism, Part II

This is a follow-up to my prior post of the same title (minus the "Part II", of course).

In 2000, Bubba noted the following:

President Clinton has warned that the greatest threat to the free world in the new millennium will come from international terrorism.

In 2006, he said that global "warming" was the biggest threat of our lifetime. Presumably, international terrorism is so passé a whopping five years after 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on our soil, and the threat of terrorism worldwide is just a blip on the radar screen.

After all, who cares about dirty bombs when you have junk science to get Chicken Little over? Virus, schmirus...the SUV will destroy our country! Who needs al Qaeda to wreck our economy when we have tree-hugging anti-capitalist leftists willing to do that kind of work gratis?

No price gouging by Big Oil?

Why, how can this be? From Breitbart/AP:

An investigation by U.S. antitrust authorities found no evidence that oil companies illegally manipulated gasoline prices or constrained oil refining operations, the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.

However, the agency said it had found 15 examples that fit lawmakers' definition of price-gouging at the "refining, wholesale, or retail level." It said factors like regional and local market trends appeared to explain the pricing in nearly all the cases.

Durbin the Turban and others were DYING to implement a windfall profits tax on those evil gouging companies! But they're not gouging us? The next thing you know, somebody will attribute the rise in gas prices to that "supply and demand" thingee!

Kerry: "A fence is good...before it's not"

Let me sound the "Beating Dead Horse" alarm, before proceeding with this:

Sen. John Kerry joined most of his Democratic colleagues last week in voting to build a wall along 370 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.

But he now says that after the wall is built it should be taken down as soon as possible.

"I voted for it," Kerry acknowledged Friday while speaking to the New England Council breakfast.

But in quotes picked up by the Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Democrat added: "If I were making the long-term decision, I’d announce, you know, hopefully it’s a temporary measure, and we can take it down as soon as we have enough people" to guard the border.

That kind of "nuance" served him well in 2004, didn't it?

Ray "School Bus" Nagin wins re-election, despite Dean's meddling

I feel badly for people who lost their lives, homes, and livelihoods due to Hurricane Katrina. However, I do not feel sorry for the citizens of New Orleans who have chosen to rebuild the city under the leadership of a mayor whose incompetence resulted in immeasurable heartache that could have been avoided.

Despite a clear and obvious display of pisspoor leadership and bureaucratic bungling, Ray Nagin was just re-elected as mayor of his "Chocolate City." Hindsight being 20-20, I'd say his "Chocolate City" remarks were a rare act of political brilliance on his part.

It's a tactic that works nearly every time: remind the disgruntled black electorate that Th' Man is out to bring "your people" down, and said black electorate will vote for you every time...whether they like you or not. I watched it happen in my hometown of Memphis in 1991. Memphis, a predominantly black city, had a black school board superintendent named Willie Herenton who was fired for sexual harrassment. He wasn't fired for sh#tty schools and abysmal graduation and school crime and teen pregnancy rates...but for sexual harrassment. He predictably blamed Whitey for his firing, despite the fact that his accuser and victim was black.

Herenton exacted his revenge by running for mayor. Yes, the man whose leadership resulted in over half of TN's failing schools being in his jurisdiction wanted to bring the same failure to Memphis. The electorate complied, electing him in 1991. He's been mayor ever since, and not surprisingly, Memphis' public schools have deteriorated, crime has gone through the roof, and the city has been eclipsed by Nashville in nearly every economic category (categories that Memphis used to lead in). People have left Memphis in droves. Though Herenton's arrogance and condescension have caused the majority of Memphis to hate his guts, they continue to vote for him every time. After all, what's the alternative...voting for a Caucasian? Yeah, that'll happen, right after Bill sleeps with Hillary!

However, there is a possible silver lining on this otherwise dark cloud of human stupidity: Howie "the Scream" Dean and the national DNC suffered a humiliating defeat. From Drudge:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) secretly placed political operatives in the city of New Orleans to work against the reelection efforts of incumbent Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean made the decision himself to back mayoral candidate and sitting Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu (D-LA), sources reveal.

Dean came to the decision to back the white challenger, over the African-American incumbent Nagin, despite concerns amongst senior black officials in the Party that the DNC should stay neutral. (I guess affirmative action and "diversitry" are only palatable when there are no party goals being interfered with, huh? - Ed.)

The DNC teams actively worked to defeat Nagin under the auspice of the committee's voting rights program.

The party's field efforts also coincided with a national effort by Democrat contributors to support Landrieu.

Landrieu had outraised Nagin by a wide margin - $3.3 million to $541,980.

Preliminary campaign finance reports indicate many of Landrieu’s contributions came from out of state white Democrat leaders and financiers, including a $1,000 contribution from Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) PAC.

The defeat of Mitch Landrieu is the latest setback for Dean's often criticized field operation.

Hey, there may be hope yet for the GOP! As long as Howie is running the DNC, the inept and incompetent GOP will always have a fighting chance to win elections that they otherwise would be doomed to lose.

"We need more of this kind of leadership in our Chocolate City!"

Clinton: Global "warming" more of a threat than terrorism

From the disgraced and formerly disbarred ex-president, Bubba Clinton:

Former President Bill Clinton said on Saturday global warming is a greater threat to the future than terrorism and that the United States and other countries must "get off our butts" and do something about it.

Clinton, speaking to the graduating class at University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, said the United States must pursue policies that make "more partners and fewer enemies" and use "institutionalized cooperation" before there is catastrophic damage from global warming.
...
"It's the only thing we face today that has the power to remove the preconditions of civilized society," he said.
...
During Clinton's administration, the global Kyoto Protocol to curb the release of greenhouse gases was created but the Bush administration has rejected it on grounds it will hurt the U.S. economy.

A few observations:

1. Clearly, Bubba believes that global "warming" is more of a threat than terrorism. After all, his tenure was glaringly devoid of any real measures to fight terrorism, and we began cleaning up his mess on Sept. 11, 2001. But hey...he did help craft the Kyoto Treaty, which was rejected by the Senate 95-0. For those of you on the left, that means that the same Senate Democrats who bitch about Bush not signing Kyoto are getting angry at him for backing their votes! Why, how dare he agree with them!

2. Given Bubba's shady background and past, as well as his reputation for tagging bus station skanks, I would have advised him against using the expression "get off butts." Just seems like it would have been wise to pick another phrase, huh?

3. By "more partners and fewer enemies", Bubba is talking about accepting Chinese campaign cash and selling the ChiComs our nuclear technology.

4. By "institutionalized cooperation", Bubba is either talking about kissing Kofi Annan's ass, letting Maddy Not-bright give the NorKoms a nuclear reactor because they promised ("Scouts honor", we're told) they wouldn't use it to build nuclear weapons, or both. How odd that the NorKoms lied! Who knew that you couldn't trust a maniacal commie dictator?

5. "Before there is catastrophic damage from global warming"? I'm still waiting on that Ice Age we were promised back in the 1970's! Are we supposed to freeze or fry? I get them mixed up every few decades or so!

6. "It's the only thing we face today that has the power to remove the preconditions of civilized society," he said. The "it" he's talking about would be interpreted by normal Americans as Islamofascist terrorism. That he is instead talking about a dubious condition called global "warming" shows just how far removed from reality he was while being diddled by interns and groupies for eight years.

7. Read the last paragraph in the blockquote above: "During Clinton's administration, the global Kyoto Protocol to curb the release of greenhouse gases was created but the Bush administration has rejected it on grounds it will hurt the U.S. economy." The Senate rejected Kyoto 95-0 in 1997, nearly four years before Bush was inaugurated...but it was Bush that rejected Kyoto? What did he do, convince the U.S. Senate to reject it while he was still governor of Texas? Man, he's more brilliant and powerful than you lefties give him credit for then, huh? LOL!

Leaky Leahy outraged over NSA's use of his own bill

With the willingness of the MSM, Leaky Leahy thinks he can get away with this. From NewsMax:

In 1994 Sen. Pat "Leaky" Leahy co-wrote a law that forced telecommunications carriers to build convenient wiretap features into their networks enabling the kind of telephone records collection now at the heart of the controversy over the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance operation.

In recent days Leahy has called the NSA's actions troubling and potentially illegal - saying they show that the Bush administration is treating Americans like terrorists.

"'The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans?" he exclaimed after USA Today blew the lid off the program last week. "Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?"

But according to the Rutland Herald, Leahy was singing a different tune 12 years ago, when he was pushing the Senate to pass his bill, the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA].

"I suggest to senators if anybody does want to hold [CALEA] up, I hope that at this time next year, neither they nor their constituents, nor anybody they know, is a kidnap victim or victim of a terrorist, and have somebody ask why nothing can be done, and be told because a law that had probably 99 percent support in the House and the Senate did not pass."

Ah...but that was different, right, Leahy?

Contacted by the Herald earlier this week, Leahy said there was an important difference between what his law authorized and the actions taken by the Bush administration.

"That law talks of the technology of the interception and what technology can be used to intercept and it assumes very clearly that it can only be done with a warrant," the Vermont Democrat insisted.

Some legal experts say, however, said that assumption is not as clear as Leahy claims. Analyzing CALEA in 2003, the Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal explained:

"CALEA requires a telecommunications provider to make 'its equipment, facilities, or services ... capable of ... enabling the government ... [without a warrant] to intercept ... all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier.'

"Leaky: FOR the NSA wiretapping, before he was AGAINST it!"

Pic of the day

Baghdad Bob's twin brother? Hat tip to Van Helsing at Moonbattery:

But hey...he supports the troops!

In related news...

Headline: "Apes Shown to Be Able to Plan Ahead"

In related news, Democrats plan ahead to regain the House.

Democrat culture of corruption in Atlanta

The predominantly (nearly exclusively) Democratic Atlanta City Council engages in a little power-drunk display of arrogance and sense of entitlement...not that this is behavior atypical of liberals. From FNC:

A series of scandals on Capitol Hill have national lawmakers pushing for stricter ethics rules, but not the Atlanta City Council. Council members voted 11-2 to relax ethics standards, allowing any city employee to accept unlimited meals and tickets to local events from lobbyists.

What's more, Atlanta's ethics officer points out that measure doesn't require the person buying the meals to be present at the time and notes that staffers are not required to disclose the gifts.

One council member tells the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the measure simply "made sense," adding that meals and tickets wouldn't influence his decisions.

Simply "made sense"? Of course it did...who wouldn't want free food and tickets?

Does anyone wonder how the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would react if Republicans pulled this same stunt? Me neither...I already know how they'd react. They'd be all over the GOP like Fat Bastard on Mini-Me (Austin Powers reference, for those who didn't get the analogy).

"Don't question our votes, or we'll accuse you of racism!"

Divided we...stand?

This article raises some fantastic points and questions, especially for the libertarian (or Libertarian, whichever you prefer) at heart. Excerpt:

Great articles all, and well worth the read. Still, the series reminds me of a humorous commercial currently running on television: In the ad, a group of bankers are hiking through the jungle, and one falls into quicksand. The group forms an "emergency" discussion committee to develop alternative responses to the crisis, while the guy sinks out sight.

My contribution and advice to worried libertarians:

Your patient is lying unconscious on the ground bleeding to death. Yes, the patient's leg was blown off by a Republican roadside bomb, and we are all angry at the Republicans and feel really bad about what happened. But this might not be the time to discuss where to build a hospital and how to equip a surgical suite to treat the patient. Right now, we really need to apply a tourniquet and stop the bleeding.

Fortunately, there is a tourniquet in easy reach, from William Niskanen, one of Cato's own. The tourniquet is the election of a divided government in the 2006 election. Apply it first, and once the bleeding is managed, we have an opportunity to help the patient with more advanced treatments.

The author recommends letting the GOP lose in 2006, and thus have a divided legislature and executive branch. I like his points, and I have a few of my own.

First of all, the Democrats suck. No disagreement there. However, as I've pointed out time and again here, the Republicans today give me very little reason to vote for them. Just as I criticize the Dems' strategy of "Vote for us, because we're not them", I criticize the same strategy in the GOP.

Secondly, what exactly would the Dems harm us with? They wouldn't get a damned thing passed into law, provided that (a) Bush can ever find his veto pen, and (b) he remembers that he's supposed to be a member of the "conservative" (snicker) ideology.

Would a Dem House impeach Bush? Possibly. Would the Senate remove him? No way.

Would Dems try to increase taxes? Sure. Would Bush veto the tax increases? Likely. Would a Dem House have the votes to override a veto? Nope.

Are Dems serious on national security? Nope. Would our security suffer? Hardly...they'd be petrified of getting tossed out on their asses if they were accurately portrayed as being anti-defense.

What about immigration? Hell, the GOP isn't doing any worse than the Dems would do! And considering Bush is pushing his "amnesty but not really" program, the Dems would just be giving him what he's already wanting (and what the Congress would give him) anyway.

House Speaker Pelosi? Yeah, it's pretty scary. However, so is House Speaker Hastert right now.

In short, I doubt that the Dems would get anything done. And as far as I'm concerned, based on what I'm seeing coming out of a "unified" government right now, I'd be pretty content with having nothing getting done.

I was excited in 2000, 2002, and 2004 when the GOP increased its size in D.C. Visions of scaling back the bloated bureaucratic beast and implementing fiscal conservatism danced in my noggin. Alas, it was all a dream. The GOP has taken its right-of-center base for granted and has instead tried to win over the soft mushy middle. They probably figure that the base will support them in lockstep, much like blacks and gays are taken for granted by the Democrats...after all, they won't vote for the other guy, right? True, but they may not vote...which, electorally speaking, is just as bad. Dems may not be able to beat the GOP, but the GOP can beat the GOP, and at this rate, seem poised to do so.

Food for thought.

Thought for the day

From Ann Coulter, regarding Bush's "amnesty, but not really amnesty" proposal:

Bush has also apparently learned that the word "amnesty" does not poll well. On Monday night, he angrily denounced the idea of amnesty just before proposing his own amnesty program. The difference between Bush's amnesty program and "amnesty" is: He'd give amnesty only to people who have been breaking our laws for many years -- not just a few months. (It's the same program that allows Ted Kennedy to stay in the Senate.)

She's awesome, but could someone please throw her a pork chop or two?

Murtha hangs Marines

Why even bother having an investigation or a trial? The left's "we love the troops" jock-sniffers' favorite son, Jack-off Murtha (D-PA), has already tried and convicted the Marines in question. From Expose the Left:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me ask you Mr. Murtha to give us some details about that. Draw us a picture of what happened at Haditha.

REP. JOHN “JACK” MURTHA: Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians. And, and –

MATTHEWS:—was this My Lai? Was this a case of – when you say cold blood Congressman, a lot of people think you’re basically saying you got some civilians sitting in a room around a field and they’re executed.

MURTA: That’s exactly it.

I guess when we're not busy terrorizing Iraqi children, we're killing innocent Iraqi grown-ups, too. I guess it never crossed the mind of Murtha that the investigation into the incident is still ongoing...nor did it cross his mind to read the damned report in the first place! Nice job, Jack-off: be judge, jury, and executioner of your "fellow" Marines without even reading the details!

Maybe there are some exceptions to the rule that "Once a Marine, always a Marine!" Neal Boortz is right: "I can tell you that no Marine worth his salt is ever going to accuse another Marine of murdering someone in cold blood unless he has the incontrovertible evidence to prove the charge.."

For even more of Moonbat Murtha's musings, how about this doozy?

Murtha held the news conference to mark six months since his initial call for "redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq.

He said U.S. forces were under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.

Sure, the troops are war criminals, but it's George Bush's fault!

The Confederate Yankee sums it up best: "Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts." Correct, sir...if someone truly supported the troops.

Can I go ahead and question their patriotism now?

Ambulance chasers, the country is laughing at you!

At first, I thought this was satire. However, it appears to be real and genuine. From Altoona, PA:

Inspired by a Los Angeles Angels fan who filed a lawsuit against the club because he did not receive a red nylon tote bag as part of the major league club's Mother’s Day promotion last May, the Altoona Curve have announced that they will be holding Salute to Frivolous Lawsuit Night as part of their Sunday, July 2nd game at Blair County Ballpark.

The Curve’s salute to all ridiculous lawsuits ever filed will include the following:

A Pink Tote Bag Giveaway to the first 137 men in attendance ages 18 and over

The first 137 women 18 and over will receive lukewarm coffee so they will not burn themselves

The first 137 kids will be given a beach ball with a warning not to ingest it

Angels merchandise and novelty items given away throughout the game

Honoring some of history's "Most Frivolous Lawsuits" during the game

A grand prize drawing in which one fan will receive a “clue” and their own frivolous lawsuit.

Additional details will be announced later.

“We realize that these giveaways as part of our Salute to Frivolous Lawsuit Night are fairly stupid and serve no real purpose,” said Curve General Manager Todd Parnell. “But if our fans don’t like them, then they can sue us!”

Curve President and Managing Partner Chuck Greenberg, himself a practicing corporate and sports attorney, declined to comment on his club’s promotion because of concerns that his comments could lead to a frivolous lawsuit.

I'm offended! Someone call my lawyer at his firm: Howe, Dewey, Cheatum, and Wen.

Phone companies turn over call records: another made-up MSM story?

The MSM got a story completely wrong?!? That never happens! From the originators of said bogus story, USA Today:

Verizon said in a statement Tuesday that it is not providing customer calling information to the National Security Agency.

"One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting," the statement said, "is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls. This is false."

Last Thursday, USA TODAY reported that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon, citing people with direct knowledge of the program.
...
On Monday, BellSouth denied providing records to the NSA. AT&T has refused to confirm or deny that it gave records to the NSA. One of the nation's major telecommunication companies, Qwest, declined to participate in the NSA program, the story said, a fact confirmed Friday by Herbert Stern, the lawyer for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio.

I know I've seen something like this before, where an MSM outlet makes sh#t up just to score political points. I can't quite remember where, though. I'm sure it will come to me, though.

So is this the new standard for the MSM? "No denial equals confirmation"? "Fake but accurate"? Supposedly, USA Today said they contacted Bellsouth a day before the story ran and since Bellsouth didn't dispute the story, figured that it must be true.

As of this moment, USA Today stands by its story. Then again, Mapes and Rather stand by their story, too...to this very day.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

U.S. to be sued for...defending its borders?

From the Houston Chronicle:

Mexico warned Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border, and some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.
...
"If we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station.

Rumor has it that one such "more perilous area" is MEXICO! Can you imagine if Mexicans had to stay in Mexico, forced to apply for legal entry into the U.S.? Why, just what would this world be coming to?

Is a foreign country given access to OUR courts to sue US for anything, much less protecting the sovereignty of OUR country? Given how liberals get erections over the idea of al Qaeda terrorists getting access to lawyers, I have little doubt they would support a foreign country suing the evil U.S. for having the temerity to secure its borders.

Perspective

Even Jamaica?

Gary Glitter's appeal postponed

From the AP:

Vietnam has postponed the appeals trial of former British glam rocker Gary Glitter until next month, a court official said Tuesday.
...
Glitter, 62, whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd, was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison by a Vietnamese court in March for committing obscene acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls at his rented seaside villa and at a hotel.

According to the investigative staff here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS), Mr. Glitter is a summa cum laude graduate of the Scott Ritter (Jr. High) School of Picking Up Females. CLOWNS sources say that Mr. Ritter's final exam is oral, but that is still unconfirmed at this time.

What would we do without CLOWNS dominating the media, huh?

MN not taking the Souter approach to government kleptocracy

Despite having voted for John Kerry in 2004, Minnesota isn't completely off base. Observe:

The Minnesota Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill to curtail the power of government to seize private property.

Senators voted 56-to-9 in favor of changes to the process known as eminent domain. Supporters say it's been too easy in the past for cities and counties to seize property from its owners and turn it over to other private owners for redevelopment projects.

The main Senate sponsor says the legislative changes will "level the playing field" between governments and private owners. Some critics, though, are worried the changes will make it tough to get rid of urban blight.

The changes are popular with lawmakers, and the Senate vote will be followed soon by a House vote. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., also supports the changes.

I would like to know the reasoning used by the nine who voted against the bill. I suppose they were genuinely concerned with "urban blight", and had nothing to do with (a) currying favor with developers or (b) trying to fill government tax coffers! Just like Kelo was an "urban renewal" case, right?

Anyway, kudos to the Minnesota Senate for having more respect for the Constitution and private property rights than the U.S. Supreme Court did in that horrific Kelo v. New London case.

CNN makes another unflattering "mistake"

Damn, what a BIG coinkidink, huh? From Drudge:

CNN AIRS BUSH REHEARSAL LIVE; NETWORK CALLS MISTAKE

CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval Office on Monday night!

The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White House media advisor for direction.

"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.

FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.

The slip comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black 'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.

Wow...they sure do seem to get sloppy over at CNN, don't they? But I'm just sure it was an accident...again.

Illegal immigration and burglary analogy?

According to Neal Boortz, the following letter to the editor is making its rounds on the 'Net:

To the Editor:
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your home you insist that I leave. But, I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors: I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest ... except for that part where I broke into your house."

"According to the protestors, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan and provide other benefits for me and my family. My husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest ... except for that breaking in thing.

"If you try to call the police or force me out I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be here. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest .... ummmmm .... except for that breaking in thing.

"Besides. What a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being anti-housebreaker!

Did I miss anything? Does this sound reasonable to you? If it does, grab a sign and go picket something. If this sounds insane to you call your senators and enlighten them because they are stumbling in the darkness right now and really need your help.

(Name? _______________)

The misplaced quotes and shifting third-then-first-person references aside, the overall analogy is a great one indeed. It's also got the bonus of being very politically incorrect, too! :-)

ACLU mining financial data, ignores its own criticism of others who do it

File this one under "Good enough for me, but not for thee", a mentality frequently exhibited by leftists. From Stop the ACLU:

Via ACLU Website:

In a story released today in USA Today it was revealed that the NSA has been collecting call information about millions of American residents and businesses served by Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth. One industry insider referred to it as the “largest database ever assembled in the world.” The American Civil Liberties Union strongly condemned the Bush administration’s most egregious abuse of power to date.

While Congress is investigating that, maybe they should also take some time to investigate the hypocritical practices of the ACLU delving into its own members’ private financial information. After all, that is much more intrusive, and has nothing to do with national security.

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Yes, a mockery indeed.

The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

After spending 23 years on the ACLU board, the “defenders of free speech” issued gag orders to him, not to speak about the issue.

The people who are trying to gag my speech and Wendy Cabman’s (ph) speech, they are the enemies of freedom. They are the enemies of free speech. And we’re not going to concede the control of the ACLU to these renegades who are trying to hijack the ACLU.

Talk about compromising your values. This is the most hypocritical organization out there! Can someone please gag their whining? I’m tired of hearing about it. The ACLU have absolutely no room to talk on this issue. Perhaps they should practice their right to remain silent.

Who wants to bet that Congress, specifically Leaky Leahy (boy, talk about gall that he's outraged!) and Kennedrunk and Arlen Spectacle...er, Specter...won't be calling the ACLU to the floor anytime soon?

"Prosecute or shut up!"

An excellent analysis of the current NSA situations (leaks, phone databases, etc.) by Sane Works:

The President and his Attorney General cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell us what a terrible thing these disclosures have been for our safety and that they have put real lives at risk and then fail to prosecute those who did this to us. The leakers are bad men and women and ought to be put away for the rest of their lives (at least 10 years for each count as the statute provides). But it is the media that broadcasts these secrets to our enemies. They should be destroyed with every political and legal tool available.

Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General: Either Protect Us or Leave Us! We will find someone who will!!!

There's an old Southern expression: Either sh#t or get off the toilet! Sure, it may be a crude and base expression, but it applies to situations like this.

If the MSM is guilty of leaking classified and security-sensitive information, then why in the hell aren't we prosecuting these modern day digital Benedict Arnolds? If we're not prosecuting them, then one may infer that the various federal laws governing publication and dispensing of classified and security-sensitive information have not been broken. If it is true that said laws haven't been broken, then at the very least, the administration is guilty of scaremongering under the heretofore untouchable label "national security."

I happen to believe that the actions of the MSM are clearly violations of the Espionage Act (among other laws). However, since the administration has failed to act on these leaks (at least, we don't KNOW that they've acted on them) and has instead tried to placate the MSM, I do have to wonder!

Chuck the Schmuck was against Dubai Ports...before he was for it

If you recall the whole Dubai Ports fiasco from earlier this year, you'll recall that I was howling mad about it. Then, the more I learned, the less reflexively angry I got. While I still wasn't convinced it was a good idea, I wasn't as frightened by the deal.

Now, I'm beginning to think it wasn't a bad deal after all. Why the change of heart? Because Chuck the Schmuck Schumer has showed that he never cared about the alleged security risks after all. Details.

Nearly three months ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer led the charge against Dubai Ports World. We shared his worries that a Dubai firm running U.S. ports might be more easily infiltrated by al Qaeda or other terrorists. But now Mr. Schumer wants to outsource cargo screening to the very same company.

Mr. Schumer might not even fully know what he has proposed. In a failed amendment to the emergency-spending bill, Mr. Schumer tried to force all ports participating in the Container Security Initiative -- that's more than 40 of the world's busiest ports including Singapore, Rotterdam and Tokyo, among others -- to model their cargo-screening systems after Hong Kong's if they want to keep sending cargo to the United States. Beyond its bullying unilateralism, this would have ended up handing much of the country's foreign-cargo screening records to Dubai Ports World.

Hong Kong's new system -- though innovative and worthy of study -- is criticized by industry insiders as "vendor-driven." That means that private firms handle the screening records. And it happens that the emerging private "vendor" on the world scene is Dubai Ports World.

Typical of the left. After all, what's national security good for if you can't feign interest in it while beating the opposition over the head, right?

Schiavo a Kos kook?

Daily Kos, the blogosphere's premiere moonbat blog, has acquired a new contributor: Michael Schiavo. Read into that what you will.

Quote of the day

Matt Loser Lauer of the little-watched NBC network, regarding the dinosaur media's year-old rehashing (as if it were brand new) of the NSA terrorist surveillance program (link):

Will there be a huge political fallout? Americans are evenly split on the domestic program [i.e., the terrorist surveillance progam].

"Evenly split"? Since when did 66% of Americans supporting NSA's efforts become an "even split"? Now I did go to college at Florida State, but I seem to recall that 66% is much greater than (i.e. not very close to "even") 50%. Excellent math skills, Matt! I see journalism no longer requires a well-rounded education in the basics anymore.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Possible renaming of this blog?

I don't have a problem with the name of my blog. Hell, I picked it! However, I do sometimes wonder if maybe a different or more amusing name would be appropriate. I could get a new domain name (for those of you on the left, that's the same thing as your "www.whatever.com" address), but keep this one to automatically forward to the new address, so no updating of bookmarks would be necessary.

I'm leaning towards "Southern Infidel", to show my pride in both my geographic location and upbringing AND my politically incorrect intemperate nature! However, I'm open to suggestions here from my peeps: "Southern Infidel", something different, or no name change? What say you fine folks?

Bumper sticker of the day

I read the following bumper sticker while heading to the gym:

Jesus loves you.
Everyone else thinks you're an #sshole!

I laughed, then I thought for a moment: "Hey, wait a minute. Is God trying to tell me something?"

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

GOP deserves to lose in November?

I've voiced my frustrations with the "conservative" Republican Congress and President for a while now, specifically (among many reasons) about how they seem to have abandoned their fiscal "conservatism" roots. Well, Peggy Noonan suggests that maybe it would take a GOP loss in November to straighten them out. Preach on, sister!

What's behind the president's, and the Congressional Republicans', poll drop? All the bad news that's been noted, from Iraq and Katrina to high spending and immigration. What's behind the bad decisions made in those areas? Detachment from the ground.

Power is distancing.

When you've been in Congress for a while, or the White House for a while, you both forget too many things and learn too many things.

You forget why they sent you. You forget it's not that you're charming and wonderful. You forget it's not you. You become immersed in a Washington conversation, a political conversation, that is, by definition, unlike the normal human conversation back home. To survive and thrive, national politicians have to speak two languages, Here and Home. Actually it's more than two languages, it's two cultures. It's hard to straddle cultures.

But even as you forget a lot, you learn a lot. You get crammed into your head the political realities on the ground around you--how big the minority Democratic bloc in the House really is, how many votes the other team has in what committee, where to go for legal money, how the press will react to any given decision or statement.

In time you know a lot of things the people who sent you to Washington don't know. And you come to forget what they do know. It used to be easy for you to remember that, because it's what you knew too.
...
If you are a normal person with the normal amount of political awareness, you might see it this way:

The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but they increase it--a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they're concerned about our borders, but they're not securing them. And they seem to think we're slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they're sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary. Beyond that, there's something creepy about increasing spending so much and not paying the price right away but instead rolling it over and on to our kids, and their kids.

So, the normal voter might think, maybe the Democrats. But Democrats are big spenders, Democrats are big government, Democrats will roll the cost onto our kids, and on foreign affairs they're--what? Cynical? Confused? In a constant daily cringe about how their own base will portray them? All of the above.

Where does such a voter go, and what does such a voter do? It is odd to live in the age of options, when everyone's exhausted by choice, and feel your options for securing political progress are so limited. One party has beliefs it doesn't act on. The other doesn't seem to have beliefs, only impulses.
...
Party leaders are showing a belief in process as opposed to a belief in, say, belief. But belief drives politics. It certainly drives each party's base.

One gets the impression party leaders, deep in their hearts, believe the base is . . . base. Unsophisticated. Primitive. Obsessed with its little issues. They're trying to educate the base. But if history is a guide, the base is about to teach them a lesson instead.

Noonan can't exactly be accused of being a left-wing mouthpiece or influenced by the liberal MSM, now can she?

Hot damn! Go get 'em, Tony Snow!

From The Examiner:

New White House Press Secretary Tony Snow is starting off in a combative mode against the press by issuing detailed rebuttals to what he considers unfair coverage of Bush.

“The New York Times continues to ignore America’s economic progress,” blared the headline of an e-mail sent to reporters Wednesday by the White House press office.

Minutes earlier, another e-mail blasted CBS News, which has had an unusually rocky relationship with the White House since 2004, when CBS aired what turned out to be forged documents in a failed effort to question the president’s military service. (Yeah, presidents might tend to get a bit defensive when you try to influence the outcome of their election by eagerly running bogus stories! - Ed.)

“CBS News misleadingly reports that only 8 million seniors have signed up for Medicare prescription drug coverage,” Wednesday’s missive said. “But 37 million seniors have coverage.” On Tuesday, the White House railed against “USA Today’s misleading Medicare story.”

“USA Today claims ‘poor, often minority’ Medicare beneficiaries are not enrolling in Medicare drug coverage,” the press office complained. “But by April, more than 70 percent of eligible African Americans, more than 70 percent of eligible Hispanics, and more than 75 percent of eligible Asian Americans are enrolled or have retiree drug coverage.”

White House sources said Snow, who started on the job Monday and has yet to give his first public press briefing, is determined to aggressively counter what the administration considers unfair assertions in both news and editorials about Bush. At the same time, he is eager to make the notoriously secretive administration more accessible to the press.

With all due respect to Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, Tony Snow is exactly what this White House needs to combat the leftist MSM!

Tax cuts accomplishing their goal?

Who knew?? Oh, yeah...those of us with a basic grasp of economics knew! From Breitbart/AP:

A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month.

In its monthly accounting of the government's books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005.

It marked the largest one-month receipt total since the government collected $332 billion in revenue in April 2001, reflecting a boom in capital gains from stock investors lucky enough to cash out their investments before the bursting of the stock market bubble in early 2000.

Now, if we could only convince Congress to stop pissing away all of the extra money (and then some), we'd be in much better fiscal condition!

Face it, folks: it's worked every time it's been tried! Tax cuts put money back into taxpayers' pockets. Yes, even the "evil rich" taxpayers get some money back. That money gets spent on anything from consumer purchases to expanding businesses to whatever else. This money, in return, results in even MORE productivity...which inevitably results in extra taxable income. Translation: more tax revenues going into the federal coffers. To that end, tax cuts work.

However, if Congress fails to take advantage of the situation (and this always seems to be the case), then the benefits realized from the tax cuts are blunted, if not nullified. By spending all of the extra money and then some on demonstrably failed or new (and thus yet to fail) programs, Congress does a poor fiduciary job.

Here's an analogy I used before, so please indulge me if you've seen this already:

Let's say your boss gives you a $10,000 Christmas bonus. Wow! Let's say that instead of putting the $10,000 towards your mortgage or retirement or consumer debt, you go down to your local Mercedes dealership and buy a $50,000 car, and you pay the $10,000 as a down payment.

Your $10,000 gain just turned into a $40,000 deficit! If you're a liberal, you blame your deficit on the $10,000 bonus instead of the poor decision you made on what to do with the extra money.

In short: tax cuts work, Congress doesn't!

We're not all dead yet?

From John Stossel:

Where are the bodies?

For years, reporters have been alerting America to one scare after another. Chemicals, cell phones, SARS -- everything is going to kill us! You would think by now we'd be doing nothing but digging graves.

Instead, Americans are living longer than ever. Not that you'd ever know that from the mainstream media.


So let's grab a shovel to clear away the nonsense and dig out the truth: Myths, lies and stupidity are often the basis of today's scary news stories.

Reports that motorists using cell phones were triggering explosions at gas stations sent fear at gas stations through the roof (where gas prices, adjusted for inflation, haven't gone). But there is no evidence that cell phones are much of a threat.

The media keeps pumping out the stories. In 2004, the Poughkeepsie [N.Y.] Journal ran this scary headline: "Cell Phone Ring Starts Fire at Gas Station."

The story quoted the local fire chief, Pat Koch, as saying gas vapors were ignited by the ringing of a cell phone. But -- stop the presses and start shoveling -- just days later, Koch said: "After further investigation . . . I have concluded that the source of ignition was from some source other than the cell phone . . . most likely static discharge from the motorist himself." The truth is that anything that involves static or sparks can ignite gasoline fumes, including rubbing your rear end against a cloth car seat on a dry winter day.

At the University of Oklahoma, there's a "Center for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility," which researches the effects of electronic devices on our lives. The center examined incident reports and scientific data, and concluded that there was "virtually no evidence to suggest that cell phones pose a hazard at gas stations." The researchers went even further: "The historical evidence," it said, "does not support the need for further research."

You're about as likely to be toasted by a dragon. To its credit, the Poughkeepsie Journal gave its follow-up story as much play as the original. The media rarely do that. Usually, the alarmist and scientifically clueless media just keep churning out the scares.
...
Almost every week, there is another story about a potential menace. Reporters credulously accept the activists' scares: While I've been a reporter, I've been asked to do alarmist reports about hair dye, dry cleaning, coffee, chewing gum, saccharin, cyclamates, NutraSweet, nitrites, Red No. 2 dye, electric blankets, video display terminals, dental fillings, cellular phones, vaccines, potato chips, farmed salmon, Teflon, antiperspirants and even rubber duckies.

I refused to do most of those stories. If one-tenth of what the reporters suggested was happening did happen, there would be mass death. The opposite is true: Despite exposure to radiation and all those nasty new chemicals, Americans today live longer than ever.

Go ahead and add "global warming" to that list of overhyped Chicken Little babble, too.

Today's "stupid Euros" story

Leave it to Euros to be this stupid! From Yahoo! News:

A couple who climbed a suspension bridge in Germany to watch the sunrise sparked a major rescue operation when passers-by mistook their stunt for a suicide bid, police said Monday.

A driver called police after seeing a man sitting on top of the road bridge on the Main river near Frankfurt, and thought the 25-year-old planned to kill himself.

Squad cars, fire engines and a police speedboat with divers rushed to the scene.

"The man and his girlfriend climbed down from the bridge and said sheepishly they had just wanted to watch the sun come up," police spokesman Franz Winkler said. "It looks like they may have to foot the bill for it."

Firefighters put their "rescue" bill at 1,600 euros ($2,000). Police are still counting, he added.

Does anyone know how to say "Kiss my #ss, I'm not paying for YOUR screw-up!" in German?

Another "ungrateful Katrina 'victim'" story

From Maine:

A Maine family is in shock after the Bowdoinham house they donated to a family who lost everything to Hurricane Katrina was trashed and abandoned, reported WMTW-TV in Portland.

Albert and Nancy Poisson of Dresden decided to let William and Frances Gardner and their two daughters live in the house for a year, free of charge.

But last week, the Poissons found some of their appliances gone, their hardwood floor marked up and trash strewn throughout the house.

The Poissons found the Gardners through Catholic Charities of Maine, who said they have been unable to track the family down since they vanished last week.


The Poissons said they can only assume the Gardners were responsible for the mess.

"I'd really like to know why. We would have let them go. There was no money involved," said Albert Poisson.

Stories like this are not unique. I've read plenty of stories virtually identical to this one, in other parts of the country. No good deed goes unpunished, huh?

At least when the vermin were in New Orleans, they were contained to that city. But ever since Katrina flooded the fishbowl beneath sea level, the poverty-and-crime element was exported to the rest of the country.

Feds abetting illegal immigration by notifying Mexico of Minutemen locations

I was already pissed that the federal government was being derelict in its Constitutional duty to protect the country's sovereignty by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. But this is freakin' ridiculous:

The U.S. Border Patrol is tipping off Mexican authorities on the positions of members of the Minuteman civilian patrols.

U.S. officials have agreed to the notification process to reassure the Mexican government that the illegal immigrants' rights are being observed, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reports.
...
But angered Minuteman members say the reporting virtually nullifies their effectiveness and could endanger lives.

"Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time," Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, told the Ontario paper.

"It's unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country," he said. "They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of criminal cartels.

"They just basically endangered the lives of American people."
...
The Minuteman blog commented: "That is not a report on the location of Minutemen at the border, but political intelligence from our government to a foreign nation about the activities of American citizens petitioning our own government for redress of grievances."

Until Congress decides to address not only the illegal immigration problem, but also reforming of INS, the GOP can kiss my ass when they ask for my vote this year!

Doves don't get elected during war

For those of you on the left, this may come as a shock to you: We are at war, and no, it's not against George W. Bush. It's against the Islamonutbars who want you dead or dhimmis, and they don't care who you voted for in 2004. From RCP:

Marshall Wittman offers a ton of good political advice to Democrats in his column today, but if there is one line they should focus on it is this one:

Presidential elections are won in the center by hawks and not by left wing populists with dovish inclinations.

Perhaps this might not have held true in the immediate post Cold War years of the 1990's, but it is certainly sound political advice in today's post-9/11 world.

One of the main reasons John Kerry lost in 2004 is because at heart he was a classic anti-Vietnam dove. Had Kerry stepped on stage in Boston when he reported for duty during his acceptance speech and repudiated his actions when he returned home from Vietnam, apologized to the soldiers he slandered, acknowledged he was wrong in the early 1980's when he fought Ronald Reagan's vigorous defense buildup, and declared that with the wisdom that comes from maturity and age he was now ready to lead America on the tough road ahead in the War against Islamic terrorism, John Kerry would be President today.

Of course, John Kerry couldn't bring himself to say all of those things because he believes none of them. In fact, his recent speech commemorating his testimony 35 years earlier to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirms that the real John Kerry is the John Kerry of 1971 who said that U.S. soldiers, "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

In 2004, enough of the country knew that was the real John Kerry and that is why he lost. If Democrats nominate another dove at heart, they will lose again.

The Dems can't help themselves: by and large, they despise the military and they have a hard time concealing that inconvenient fact.

MSM: What good economy?

From Newsbusters:

On Saturday, The New York Times and the Washington Post had the same idea: line up average Americans to suggest any emerging macroeconomic happy talk is ignoring how "many people" are still feeling an economic pinch.

The Post put theirs on Page One, the Times on A-10. The Post headline was "Rising Expenses Have Consumers Feeling Pinched." The Times headline was "Despite a Sound Economy, Many Feel the Pinch of Daily Costs." (Online, it’s "Statistics Aside, Many Feel the Pinch of Daily Costs.") So the Post wins for pushing the theme harder, but the theme still suggests newspaper editors who are trying to throw mud pies at Pollyanna before anyone gets too thrilled with the macroeconomic picture.

For the Washington Post, repeat after me: it's more proof of how bad news makes A-1, and good news makes D-1.
...
The New York Times text box moans: "High gasoline prices, mortgage rates and insurance costs are causing increasing anxiety." But reporter Jennifer Steinhauer is reporting from Florida, where people are still struggling to recover from the last hurricane season. Wouldn’t any rational economic actor expect insurance premiums in coastal areas to rise? Steinhauer also notes the people who are struggling with adjustable-rate mortgages. It might be a bit impolite to use a headline like "Many Who Feel the Pinch of Rising Costs Made Bad Economic Decisions."

The Dow is virtually at a record high. Home ownership is at an all-time high, especially among minorities. Millions of jobs have been created over the last few years. Unemployment hovers around 4.6%. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the MSM tell us how great the economy was at the height of Clinton's re-election and scandals? "Sure, he lied under oath, but give the guy a break...my 401k has never been better!"

Nope...no liberal media bias!