Thursday, May 31, 2007

Quote of the day

I don't know why I'm commenting on this now, since I'm not much in the mood for my friends to pull a Linda Chavez on me again. But, the show must go on.

Dubya may say "Don't call it 'amnesty'", but Charlie Rangel says "Sure it is!" From the Washington Times:
On other weekend talk shows, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he and others who want to legalize illegal aliens should be up front about calling it amnesty.

"I don't know why this word 'amnesty' is such a terrible word," he said on CNN. "I think these people would make good citizens. We ought to give them amnesty."

At least give Rangel credit for being honest about the amnesty. He's saying that...what was the expression again? Oh, right..."if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck..."

Labels: ,

Linda Chavez: Why do Republicans hate Mexicans?

Linda Chavez, conservative in nearly all ways, penned a nice little race-baiting screed against people with principled objections to the amnesty plan in Congress. From Junkyard Blog:
Ragnar's Really Mad At Linda Chavez
And I can't say I blame him, because she's really making a scene, dragging out the ad hominems against anybody who disagrees with her:

Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans -- fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most -- otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors -- most prominently, Lou Dobbs -- and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.

What a divisive hack Chavez is. I'm beyond sick of being called a racist by these open-borders zealots because I have a good-faith bee in my bonnet--and whether or not it's a concern you share, please accept this isn't some proxy issue for my secret phobia of Peruvian janitors--about the idea of terrorists, gangs, drugs, and weapons sneaking over the border. I spent some time and political capital defending Chavez's self-scuttled appointment to my friends, back in the day. Now, I'm very glad someone with that much ill-disguised contempt for her party's base isn't Secretary of Labor.

Speaking of which, that 2001 nomination of Chavez as Sec. of Labor gives a clear indication as to why she's all gung-ho about granting amnesty to criminal aliens. If you recall, she withdrew her nomination upon revelations that she once housed and employed...yup, you guessed it...a criminal alien. Hey, if nothing else, at least she's consistent!

This is truly pathetic. When it comes to issues like gerrymandered districts, affirmative action, quotas, or hate crimes, we've come to expect the left to abandon all pretense of honest political dialogue and go straight to the intellectually lazy and dishonest tactic of race-baiting, portraying all opponents of those things as being closet Klansmen. Now we're beginning to see the same lazy and dishonest (and shameful) approach from parts of the right. Well, screw them. Just as I won't cower in fear from some leftard breaking out the "bigot" label to describe my genuine opposition to race-based laws and policies, I certainly won't back down from a purported conservative trying the same crappy tactic.

Labels: ,

Liberals and tolerance...

...should rarely go in the same sentence, since it is a bigger myth than unicorns. From Texas Rainmaker:
How do you think the MSM would cover a story involving a conservative refusing to shake hands with Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman or Joe Lieberman because he’s Jewish? I can almost guarantee there’d be a lot more coverage and certainly more specials on diversity or tolerance than there is when a liberal refuses to shake hands with a conservative candidate because he’s a Mormon.
Mitt Romney’s visit to New Hampshire started on a sour note Tuesday when a restaurant patron declared he would not vote for the Republican presidential contender because of his faith.

“I’m one person who will not vote for a Mormon,” Al Michaud of Dover shouted at Romney when the former Massachusetts governor approached him inside Harvey’s Bakery. Romney was kicking off the second of two day’s worth of campaign visits in the lead primary state.

Romney kept smiling as he asked, “Can I shake your hand anyway?”

Michaud replied, “No.”

Michaud later told reporters he was not “a right-winger,” alluding to some evangelical Christians who have compared Romney’s faith to a cult. Instead, Michaud stated he was “a liberal.”

Cultural diversity is a one way street for liberals. When they preach “tolerance” it’s tolerance of them, not tolerance from them...

As one of TR's commenters point out, there was indeed MSM coverage of the incident. However, I think TR's point wasn't that the story wasn't covered, but how it was covered. In other words, had a Republican done the same thing, the spin would have clearly been more pronounced.

But to me, the MSM bias or lack thereof isn't the point. The point is that the myth of liberal "tolerance" is being exposed more and more each day.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

President Bush and "empty rhetoric"

Excellent post by Michelle Malkin! Here:
President Bush attacked immigration enforcement proponents for engaging in "empty political rhetoric"--and the NYTimes was all too happy to report on it:
President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.

“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”

President Bush, meet the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

President Bush, meet Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

President Bush, meet your oath of office in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Talk about "empty rhetoric," President Bush.

The Heritage Foundation has a great analysis of rewarding criminal aliens' behavior by undermining the rule of law that Dubya was sworn to uphold and enforce...just in case Dubya wants to take a gander. Yeah, right.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I can't wait until this guy gets the hell out of D.C.


Quote of the day

From Hot Air:
“I think that celebrities did not expect that free speech is a two-way street, and that on the Internet, we can now talk back to them. And so when they preach that we get rid of our SUVs, those middle class out there who go to Costco with their three or four kids … while they’re flying in private jets — I don’t think that celebrities understood … that putting out ideas that marginalize them from their core audience, that shows a sense of elitism, is probably not in their best interest.”


Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Shrillary touts message of socialism

But she's not a socialist, mind you, even if she sounds one. From the AP:
Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America." (Actually, John Kerry sent that message with the "stuck in Iraq" thingy. - Ed.)

I'm wondering: By "special privileges for none", does she mean "being above the law"? She and her hubby wouldn't know anything about that, now would they? And by "fairness", she means "as determined by the imperial federal government", so you just know it's truly "fair", right?

Her assault on and contempt for the rights of the individual are well documented. Yikes. Marx would be proud.

Labels: , ,

Chavez seizes opposition TV station

Let the defenders of socialist tinpot Hugo Chavez explain away this (via Hot Air):
The last one in the country, in fact, with a national reach:
[T]he decision not to renew Radio Caracas Television’s broadcast license and replace it at midnight Sunday with a public service station was celebrated in the streets by supporters of Chavez, who watched the new channel’s first transmission on large TV screens. Others launched fireworks and danced to the classic salsa tune “Todo tiene su final” — “Everything Has Its End.”

The mood inside the studios of RCTV — the sole opposition-aligned TV station with nationwide reach — was somber. Disheartened actors and comedians wept and embraced in the final minutes on the air.
Founded in 1953, RCTV had broadcast a mix of talk shows, sports, soap operas and the popular comedy program “Radio Rochela,” which poked fun at presidents — including Chavez — for decades. RCTV was regularly the top channel in viewer ratings, but Chavez accused the channel of “poisoning” Venezuelans with programming that promotes capitalism.

Gateway Pundit has photos of the reaction from Chavez’s opponents. The tanks have allegedly been sent in.

How sad it is that the left can never acknowledge the totalitarian tactics of socialists and other leftist "leaders" of the world. This is beginning to look like Cuba redux circa 1959.

Neal Boortz sees a disturbing pattern here:
Jealousy is an ugly thing. And jealousy is especially ugly when you have freely elected leaders from a country that prides itself on a dedication to freedom and individual liberty being openly jealous of a dictator.

Such is the case with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Hugo the Horrible has now accomplished in Venezuela what Democrats only wish they could accomplish here at home. He has silenced a broadcast outlet that was critical of his regime. Sunday night Venezuela's most popular television station went off the air. Why? Because Chavez decided that their broadcast license would not be renewed. Radio Caracas Television was the only TV station in Venezuela that was broadcast nationwide ... and Radio Caracas Television was critical of Hugo Chavez.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

Chavez says he is "democratizing" the public's airways. He also said that this TV station was a threat to his country. Wow! Now doesn't that sound very much like the things that the left is saying about talk radio in the U.S.?

What Chavez accomplished by edict the left in this country hopes to accomplish through legislation and regulation.

Just be patient, my friends on the left. Your time is coming. The impotent Republicans pose no threat to you in 2008. In the meantime, just sit back and admire your friend Hugo.

We should note that Venezuelans are protesting Chavez' actions. He'll tolerate some protests --- but let's hope these people know just how far they can push it. My wife and I were being shown around Caracas many years ago when we noticed some demonstrators. It was quite a spectacle to watch ... until the gunfire started. Our guide rushed us into a building to keep us safe.

How soon before Chavez answers these protestors with gunfire?

Hold on another second here. We can't let this segment go without mentioning that Hugo Chavez is the hero of such great Americans as Cindy Sheehan (see below), Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte and others. Great Americans all. Coming soon, don't miss Michael Moore's exciting documentary on the evils of Radio Caracas Television!

Labels: , , ,

Kyl gets an earful from his base on criminal alien amnesty bill

Too bad he was re-elected last year, otherwise he might actually listen. From the NY Slimes:
Angry calls poured into Senator Jon Kyl’s office this week by the thousands, expressing outrage beyond anything he said he had witnessed in his 20-year political career. The callers were inflamed by Mr. Kyl’s role in shaping the bipartisan immigration compromise announced May 17, which lawmakers continue to debate.

“Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents,” Mr. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said at a news conference on Thursday, drawing titters from those in the room...

The day after the proposal was announced, the eight phone lines at the [state Republican] party headquarters were so jammed that staff members almost decided to close the office.

"Every single line was literally off the hook most of the day," said Sean McCaffrey, the state party’s executive director. "None of these were happy calls. Truly, from our headquarters to the 15 county parties, the ratio was 100 to zero. Not a single county chairman, not a single legislative district chairman reported having a single call from a grass-roots individual saying, ‘Please pass this immigration bill.’"

No one likes it, but since "compromise" and "bipartisanship" are paramount in the Senate, it will pass anyway.


Fuzzy math

Accounting ignorance is obviously a bipartisan problem. From USA Today:
The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

I always maintained that the economic "boom" of the 1990's was an illusion, but the left wanted so badly to give Clinton credit for the economy. Well, there's no ignoring it anymore: it was an illusion, and despite the economic indicators today that were better than the 90's (interest rates, unemployment, tax rates, tax receipts, home ownership, etc.), the economic "good times" we see now are also an illusion.

Sometime, some day, the piper has to be paid. Then again, as alleged Republican Rob Simmons put it, our elected officials don't care because they'll be dead by hell with the rest of us.


Shehag "steps down" as face of, anti-war...movement

I'm not going to link to the Kostards' web site, but if you go there, you'll see where Cindy She-hag has a pity party column. Apparently, many on the left have labeled her as an "attention whore" (go figure). Perhaps there's hope for the left yet.

Part of her "goodbye" screed: "Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it."

Hey, don't go away mad...just go away.


Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Memorial Day

This will be my last post until after Memorial Day. I'd like to take this opportunity to do two things:

1. I'd like to wish all of you a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. Please take the time to reflect on the sacrifice of those who died in our nation's service.

2. I'd like to request that you offer prayers for the family of my cousin Derek, who died Monday in a tragic swimming accident. His father, mother, and sister will need God's strength and love to pull them through this.


Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Germans to track moonbats by smell

It looks like the whole "smelly hippie" thing isn't just a stereotype after all! Hat tip to Van Helsing at Moonbattery:
German authorities have discovered the obvious when it comes to fighting moonbats: tracking them by smell.

The tactic will be used to keep track of the odoriferous left-wing types likely to use next month's Group of Eight summit in Heiligendamm as a pretext to riot in protest against economic freedom. Scent samples will allow police dogs to zero in on the likely instigators if violence breaks out.

Moonbat scent samples might also have chemical warfare applications.

Here's guessing that the cops' patchouli-sniffing K-9's will be going crazier than a blind gay dude at the San Francisco Bean-Eating Contest.

Labels: ,

Quote of the day

From NRO:
Good Job, Wolf [Greg Pollowitz]

Kathryn linked to this interview earlier, but I though Wolf's next question deserved notice as well (emphasis mine):
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: You know, Wolf, first, I understand there's some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty. ...
BLITZER: Secretary Gutierrez, what do you say to those other critics who say you're rewarding illegal activity?

Good job, Wolf. Sec. Chertoff just said that conservatives want to kill illegal immigrants, and you didn't challenge him.

Not content with stepping in it once, Chertie does it again a day later:
Chertoff is really losing his professional demeanor:
I understand that some people think it's not tough enough. Maybe they want people thrown in jail for 10 years or they want people executed.

And like Wolf Blitzer earlier today, Newsweek's Richard Wolffe didn't challenge Chertoff's assertion that conservatives want to kill illegal immigrants.

Why would Wolf or Wolffe challenge him? They both believe what Chertoff says to be true.

Damn...Chertie's done got us righties figgered out, dudn't he? We are opposed to the enforcement of our immigration laws and to any attempts to reward the flouting of our laws, because...we'd rather the illegal aliens be executed and made into Soylent Green. Just when I thought our devious secret intents were more secure than a teenage girl at a Barney Frank sleepover, Chertie's gotta blow the whistle on us like that! Curses!!!

Sec. Chertoff, with all due respect: you're a dipsh#t.

Labels: , ,

Silky Pony learning more about poverty by...charging $55k for speech

Man, I wish I had the entrepreneurial talent that the Silky Pony has...not to mention the chutzpah. First, he decides he wants to learn more about poverty by working for (and making a lot of non-poverty money off of) a hedge fund. Now this:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.

The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.
The earnings -- though made before Edwards was a declared Democratic presidential candidate -- could hand ammunition to his competition for the Democratic presidential nomination. The candidate -- who was then the head of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina -- chose to speak on "Poverty, the great moral issue facing America," as his $55,000 topic at UC Davis.

That could cause both parents and students to note some irony here: UC Davis -- like the rest of the public University of California system -- will get hit this year by a 7 percent tuition increase that likely hits many of the kids his speeches are aimed at helping.

Allah at Hot Air opines:
For some reason, people keep asking him on the campaign trail about that mansion of his that’s big enough to encompass one of the two Americas he’s always yammering about. His answer: “So would it be better if I had done well and now I didn’t care about people who are struggling?” My answer: No, it’d be better if you led by example, liquidated 75% of that $40 million nest egg you’re sitting on, and showed us proles how someone committed to redistribution and income equality means business. Exit question: Could he eke by on only $10 mil?

I must confess, reluctantly, that I now agree with John Edwards' "Two Americas" theme: one America for $55k-a-pop speeches on poverty while wearing a $400 'do, and the other America for the rest of us.


Monday, May 21, 2007

"Back-taxes requirement stripped from amnesty bill — at Bush’s urging"

Yet another reason I can't wait for this guy to get the hell out of office. From Hot Air:

A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes...

Laura Capps, a spokeswoman for Kennedy, said a provision for requiring back taxes was in Kennedy’s original bill and that [DHS Secretary Michael] Chertoff called for it to be removed. “Chertoff thought it would be too challenging to accurately determine the amount of an applicant’s back taxes,” she said...

Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, which says it has 362,000 members, was stunned that the provision was removed. While saying it would be difficult to come up with a precise estimate of the amount of back taxes owed by undocumented residents, he said it would be in the tens of billions of dollars, with a similar amount in fines for failure to pay the taxes.

Too challenging, you see. In contrast to, say, the bureaucracy that’s going to be needed to enforce the moronic, purely symbolic touchback requirement. That’s not too challenging.

The real reason they stripped it is because they know illegals wouldn’t comply with it, just like many of them aren’t going to comply by paying the $5,000 penalty. Which is why that’ll end up being stripped too.

Just you try and tell the feds that figuring out your taxes is "too challenging" and see if that won't land you in the federal hoosegow. Law-abiding Americans can get in trouble for screwing up their tax burden, but illegal aliens get a pass on it. Tell me again how this is NOT amnesty?


Quote of the day

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink before reading this. From Nancy Pe-loco, regarding the "points system" part of the illegal alien sham-nesty bill:
The point system Pelosi refers to would grant those seeking citizenship points based on English proficiency, work history, family status and passing a criminal background check.

“We’re about families and family values,” Pelosi added.

Oh. My. (insert politically correct deity here). The party of abortion-on-demand and "oral sex isn't sex" and running a prostitution ring (er, "escort service") is going to call itself "pro-family"? Pffffff-bwhahahahahahahaha! Oh my...I haven't laughed that hard since Dan Quayle misspelled "potatoe" or Dukakis rode in the tank (before his election went in the tank)!

Labels: , ,

Air America, round II

What's that about the definition of insanity? Hat tip to the Conservative Manifesto:
Talk about beating a dead horse.
Air America is scheduling a high-profile lineup of presidential candidates, political players and celebrities for next week as part of the liberal talk network's "relaunch" after suffering financial woes.

When are we idiot Americans going to wake up and recognize the true radio genius of Air America, hmmmm? For those of you on the left, the prior question was both rhetorical and sarcasm.

Air America: stuck on stupid.


Friday, May 18, 2007

Porn star endorses Shrillary

Color me with the "unsurprised" crayon. From JustHillary: "Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?"

Jenna Jameson: "Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office.

I bet you would, Jenna. I bet you would.


Night and Day

From Ace:
Ted Kennedy On Immigration

1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system." (With amnesty, like the one from 21 years earlier that he swore would never be brought forward again! - Ed.)

Labels: , ,

AP: Do as we say, not as we do

My friends, pardon me for referencing yet another "good enough for me, but not for thee" situation, but this stuff just presents itself. From Michelle Malkin:
Associated Press writer Nancy Benac plays the "diversity" card with a piece tallying up how many women and minorities service in power positions for the various presidential candidates. The hit piece slamming Republicans for not promoting enough non-white people is titled "Democrats seek diversity in advisers:"
When the leading Republican presidential candidates sit down with their top advisers, those with a seat at the table don't exactly look like America, to use the phrase popularized by former President Clinton.
The 2008 presidential race is notable for the presence of a woman and a black among the leading Democratic candidates. But progress is much slower when it comes to diversifying the ranks of top decision-makers within the various campaigns, especially those of the Republicans.

The campaigns of the top GOP candidates — Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani — couldn't point to any key advisers who are black, although there are some women in the top tier. Not unsurprisingly, those campaigns with the most women and minorities among top staff members are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"Not unsurprisingly," eh? Fair and balanced at the AP, as always.

Perhaps Ms. Benac--journalistic concern troll for "diversity"--should start counting the racial and ethnic beans at her own organization. Take a look at the AP Board of Directors. Not unsurprisingly, it's "Do as we say, not as we do" with the liberal media elite. ...
Let's tally up so far...Here's your final tally:

22 members of the AP Board of Directors.

19 out of 22 are men.

0 out of 22 are "women of color."

1 out of 22 is a "man of color."

Ahem: Perhaps journalists who live in non-"diverse" houses...

In other words, Republicans are bigoted if they're "too white", but the AP just wants the most qualified person to fill a spot regardless of gender or race. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

"Diversity" at the AP

Labels: ,

Why I miss John Bolton

Man, this is pure gold! From EU Referendum:
It is not often one whoops with joy listening to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, but Jon Humphrys interviewing John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, this morning was a sheer delight. (You can listen to the piece here.)

From Humphrys we got the usual BBC droning, with forthright responses from Bolton. Eventually though, after a run of sneering negativity over Iraq, Bolton had had enough. What did it was the suggestion that the US was "a busted flush", Humphrys calling in aid George Soros.

"Are you kidding me!", responded Bolton. "This is a man of the extreme left. I am sure you will find a great deal in common with him, as would many others on the continent."

A sniffy Humphrys was not going to take that lying down though. On the attack, he demanded: "Do you make the assumption then that because one asks questions – perfectly valid questions about the conduct of American policy - one is on the extreme left?"

Bolton was unfazed: "I can see it from the content of your questions and the perspective from which you're coming and from the direction that your questions are taking. If you tell me you're a conservative, I would be happy to accept it."

That really got Humphrys going: "I would tell you that I'm neither conservative, nor left wing not right wing, nor middle wing, because..."

A laughing Bolton took that in his stride: "You have no views at all. Your brain is empty, you have no views at all..."

Attempting to muster all his majesty, Humphrys was almost squeaking in indignation: "I have an awful lot of views, Ambassador, a view for every subject under the sun but I don't express them during the course of my interviews. (I needed a beverage alert for THAT statement! Now I have to clean the Diet Dr. Pepper off of my monitor after reading that laughable statement! - Ed.) I ask questions... That's what interviewing is about... You'll have heard of a thing called devil's advocate... Maybe they don't do it like that in the United States, but..."

"I know, you're a superior Brit as well!" rejoins Bolton.

You can see why he really pissed them off at the UN.

Yeah, referring to Moveon bigwig George Freakin' Soros as an objective outsider who has issues with the war in Iraq shouldn't call into question a reporter's objectivity, should it? No liberal media bias!

Why can't any of our "leaders" (and I use that term loosely) be as savage with the bedwetting leftist MSM as Bolton was with this Europinko?

Labels: , , ,

Quote of the day

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway on the lack of will by the American people:
But he said the United States is operating on a time frame far shorter than that of al Qaeda.

"You know, the bad guys' timeline's 100 years. Ours is probably somewhere short of two at this point," he said.

For those of you on the left, "the bad guys" means Al Qaeda and "ours" refers to the United States (i.e. the good guys). Hope that helps.


Thursday, May 17, 2007

Perspective on gas prices

From Neal Boortz:
My goodness, people! Don't you realize that there are things in your life that you really need to be worrying about? What's all this weeping and moaning over gas prices?

With every single paycheck the Imperial Federal Government seizes about 14% of the money you have earned. This money is put into an income redistribution fund from which you may or may not draw a check when and if you reach a certain age. Die too soon and that money goes to someone else .. not to your heirs. Live long enough and you may .. just may ... get most of your money back, though there is no legal guarantee that you'll get a cent.

Yet here you sit pissing and moaning about gas prices.

We did the math here last week, but let's pull out the calculator again for those of you who don't come here every day.

First, the figures:

According to the AAA, one year ago the price of regular was $2.929. Today that price is $3.114. That's an 18.5 cents per gallon increase over the past year.

Now we go for the average gas mileage for cars in the U.S. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that as of 2004 the average mpg for new cars sold in the U.S. was 24.7. In 1980 it was 23.1. So, to make a point here, we're going to go even below the average price for 1980. We're going to use 20 mpg.

Now ... for those of you who went to government schools, I'll do the math for you. You're driving your family of four 1400 miles to get to Disney World and back. That means you'll be burning 70 gallons of gas at 20 mpg. The gas is now 18.5 cents more expensive than it was last year. Let's go ahead and round that UP to 20 cents. So, we burn 70 gallons and each gallon costs 20 cents more than it cost last year. That's going to cost you an amazing $14.00.

Oh My God! What an incredible tragedy! What a devastating blow to your finances! You're going to have to spend $14.00 more to drive your family to Florida this year than you did last year! That's $3.50 for each family member! How in the hell are you ever going to be able to afford this? Alert your local radio station news department! Call the newspaper! Sound the alarm! Americans are being crippled by these rising gas prices! Call your politician. Something has to be done about the evil oil companies! Get the government involved! We need more regulation!

Oh .. and you people driving to and from work need to be outraged too! Are you doing your share of the whining?

The average commute to and from work in this country is 16 miles. Now of course we know that cars don't get the mileage on a stop-and-go commute as they do on the road, so we're going to lower the gas mileage figure from 20 to 15. So, you're driving 32 miles (on the average) to get to work and back every day. That is gobbling up about 2.13 gallons of gas. Go back to that 18.5 cents per gallon increase over last year and you'll see that you're spending about 40 cents more for gas for your commute this year than you were last year. That would be about $2.00 a week. Less than the price of a decaf skinny latte at Starbucks. A lot less.

Oh, the humanity! You're spending less than the cost of three text messages on your cell phone every day to cover the increasing cost of gas! Tell your boss you're going to have to quit! You just can handle this any more! Get fired! Go on unemployment! Forty cents a day! That's it! Your back is broken!

Come on people, wake up! Your governments -- local, state and federal -- are stealing money from you every single day to fund vote-buying programs. Your local elected officials are ripping you off to support welfare artists and to study the mating habits of Polish zlotnika pigs. How do you think they feel when they see you griping about gas prices? They LOVE it! They steal you blind and there you sit complaining because you're going to have to spend $14.00 more to drive your family to Disney World and back. They take 14% of the money you earn every day -- money you may or may get back with virtually no interest -- and you're spinning around on your eyebrows because you're spending 40 cents a day more to get to that job and back home again!

Now I don't like the gas prices any more than anybody else does. It seems like yesterday (though it was actually nine years ago) that I stopped and fueled up my van in Brunswick, GA, for $0.78/gallon. But those days are gone, and as Neal shows, the price difference between this year and last year doesn't affect the average Joe/Jane nearly as much as the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would have us believe.

Three words: supply and demand. Deal with it.


News bytes

Light blogging today, since I'm busier than Hillary Clinton with a paper shredder. Here are some topics du jour:

  • What do you do if the train is late yet again? Simple: you burn, loot, and riot. Sounds like Detroit, but it's actually Buenos Aires.

  • May is National Ma$turbation Month (I thought every month qualified?), and San Franistan is having a wank-a-thon. I don't know that I need to add anything else to that!

  • Euphemism of the day from Ace: To be clever and sensitive, welfare should be called "hazard pay for service in an economic warzone"!

  • During the GOP debate, nutbar conspiracy-theorist candidate Ron Paul apologized to our enemies for us bringing 9/11 on ourselves (mainly due to Clinton's 1998 bombing of Iraq), a point with which Alan Colmes agrees. Link here (warning: vulgar language in the linked post). Rudy tears him a new one. Hilarity ensues.

  • Pelosi looks to change rule (in place since 1822) in order to shut down Republicans' right to motion or recommit, breaking her 2006 promise to not do that. GOP threatens to shut down House if the lying wench tries it. Said wench ends up blinking, then retreating (kinda like they want to do in Iraq). All within about a three hour window. Now if that's not a fast retreat, I don't know what is.


  • Wednesday, May 16, 2007

    Bush destroying Neptune

    First Earth, then Mars...and now, Neptune! Bush's Rovian Atmospheric Terminator (BRAT) is working overtime to destroy the whole solar system! From Moonbattery:
    The global warming crisis has now spread beyond Mars all the way to Neptune, the most distant planet in the solar system (Pluto doesn't count anymore).

    Neptune has been growing brighter and hotter since 1980. Scientists have correlated Neptune's warming trend, Earth's warming trend, and solar output.

    This can only mean that our selfish refusal to rescind the industrial revolution is heating up not only the Earth, but the rest of the solar system, including the Sun itself, thereby causing it to emit more energy.

    The only solution is for the United Nations to take full control of the planet and ban all modern technology. The alternative is an apocalypse of interplanetary dimensions.

    The possibility that polar bears are drowning on Neptune at this very moment cannot be ruled out.

    Not the Neptunian polar bears! Curse you, George W. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush!


    The left's anger

    Excellent column by Thomas Sowell, via RCP:
    That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

    Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

    How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?

    The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

    It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.

    There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.

    All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into a lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?

    The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.

    Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.

    A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."

    Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.

    Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement -- the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.

    Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.

    Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger.

    Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left's obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high -- or higher -- incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel.

    If the reason for the anger is a feeling that corporate CEOs are overpaid for their contributions, then there should be even more anger at people who get even more money for doing absolutely nothing, because they have inherited fortunes.

    Yet how often has the left gotten worked up into high dudgeon over those who inherited the Rockefeller, Roosevelt or Kennedy fortunes? Even spoiled heirs like Paris Hilton don't really seem to set them off.

    If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.

    Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.

    It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.

    Labels: ,

    MSM cites anti-Bush parody site as proof of Falwell's access

    Total ignorance or bias (as if either were acceptable)? You be the judge. From Hot Air:
    Yeah, The most infamous, relentlessly anti-Bush parody site on the ‘Net.

    You can imagine how it played out. Producer to intern: “We need a fawning description of him from the White House website to show how influential he was with conservatives.” Intern to producer: “Great! I’ll just google white house falwell…”
    Have a look at what, in their haste, they evidently thought was an official White House webpage. Sample quote:
    I was enjoying breakfast in my kitchen, righteously poring over my daily foot-high stack of mostly gay hardcore pornography so that I might issue informed denunciations to my flock. I had just paused to admire the contours of my third helping of some especially handsome kielbasa, when suddenly there was that awful parody staring at me from the pages of Hustler!

    And yet, when they realized what they’d done, they couldn’t admit their mistake. Watch what the anchor says at the end to “clarify” the earlier report. There’s no admission that they were fooled; on the contrary, she implies that they meant to quote and merely didn’t want to leave viewers with the impression that it’s the official White House site.

    In the old days, a reporter would be ashamed at making such a fool of herself. Not any more.


    GOP Senators to cave on amnesty?

    They haven't learned a d#mned thing from Nov. 2006, have they? Here's some good news for my illegal alien apologist visitors, bad news for proper-thinking folks:
    Sources on Capitol Hill tell me the Senate may be very close to a deal on comprehensive immigration reform.

    But as the immigration deal comes together, Senate conservatives are growing uneasy about the state of the negotiations, fearing that Republican leadership will sell out to the Bush Administration and liberal Democrats to give amnesty to illegal aliens.

    The issue boils down to whether Senate Republicans leaders, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Conference Chairman Jon Kyl (Ariz.), will give Democrats a free pass to bring up the bill without ever giving Republicans a chance to review it. Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) is leading negotiations for the Democrats, and has so far negotiated a favorable deal for Democrats, according to sources close to the negotiations.
    “There is concern among conservatives on the Hill that leadership will cave in on the motion to proceed on a bill that they’ve never seen,” one senior Senate aide told me. “Conservatives don’t want to do this because they don’t trust that the negotiators will produce a bill that will be satisfactory to conservatives.”
    “It’s unlikely that any deal will be cut that will satisfy conservatives,” said Brian Darling, a congressional analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “Any legislation containing ‘Z’ visas is a non-starter because a ‘Z’ visa is an amnesty visa.”

    LA Times is saying it's a done deal.


    Falwell dead, left rejoices

    Ah, yes. The "compassionate" left. It seems that if you're a cop-killer, child-killer, or serial killer, the left gets all teary-eyed at your plight at the hands of our legal system. If you tilt to the ideological right, then the same sympathy the left extends to axe murderers won't be coming your way.

    The Kos kooks, DUmb#ss Underground, and even MSM reporters (nope, no liberal media bias!) are giddier than Bill Clinton in a room full of kneepad-clad portly interns. And that Fred Phelps sicko apparently didn't think that Falwell "hated f@gs" nearly as much as God supposedly does, a sentiment that the Frisco freaks apparently don't share because they're having a little "Ding-dong, Falwell's dead"'s gonna be soooooooo fab! Leftard reaction round-up here.

    If we ever kill Osama (assuming he's still alive), I doubt we'll see even a fraction of this level of glee from these cretins. I certainly didn't see it when the Husseins and Zarqaward took their eternal sand naps. Glad to know the left is able to identify the REAL enemy.

    Labels: , ,

    Tuesday, May 15, 2007

    NYT: Unclear if religion played role in Fort Dix Six plot

    And this is the paper that the leftards hold in such high regard? From Newsbusters:
    New York Times reporter Alan Feuer, seen on Times Watch last May giving respectable coverage to a convention of "Bush-caused-9-11" conspiracy nuts, went to enormous (and erroneous) pains on Monday to soft-pedal the Muslim beliefs of the Fort Dix terrorist plotters in "Two Mosques Are Shaken by Ties to a Terror Plot."
    "It is unclear what role, if any, religion played in the attack Mr. Shnewer and the five other men are charged with planning. (The sixth suspect, Agron Abdullahu, had no apparent connection with Al-Aqsa or the South Jersey Islamic Center.) The authorities have described the suspects as Islamic extremists, but the lengthy criminal complaint summarizing the F.B.I.'s 15-month undercover investigation of the group does not mention where -- or how often -- they prayed. Certainly there is no evidence that they picked up radical ideas at either mosque."

    In contrast to the Times' uninformative, politically correct take, the New York Post filed a complete story, with details on the suspects' radical Islamic beliefs.
    "When the teen and another employee went into a back room and began the conversion of the tape, they saw a group of bearded men wearing 'fundamentalist attire' and shooting 'big, f-ing guns,' the teen later told co-workers.

    "Throughout the 90-minute-long tape, above the booming gunfire at a Pennsylvania target range, the jihadists could be heard screaming 'God is great!'"
    "That call to authorities set in motion a 16-month undercover investigation in which six of the men caught on tape chillingly discussing killing soldiers 'in the name of Allah.'"

    Yeah, I could see where six guys talking about killing soldiers in the name of Allah while wearing jihadi garb could be a tad bit confusing as to whether or not they are Muslim. liberal media bias!

    Labels: , ,

    Rahm tells reporter to go f*** himself

    From Hot Air:
    What deeply personal subject did the reporter broach to warrant such a stern upbraiding?

    Lobby reform, naturally:
    Before a Democratic caucus meeting, a Politico reporter asked House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois about the language of the bill’s main provisions. After Emanuel demurred on the specifics, this reporter asked — in the effort for openness and disclosure — if a journalist could sit in to hear debate on the language.

    “Why don’t you go f— yourself?” Emanuel replied, as he entered a men’s room in the Capitol basement.

    Exit question: How will the nutroots distinguish this from Cheney’s similar remark to Pat Leahy?

    (a) By youth. Rahm’s a sprightly 47, Cheney a wizened 66. We can forgive the former the excesses of youthful immaturity, but an adult really should know better.
    (b) By stature. No one cares what a congressman says, even if he is one of his party’s leading spokesmen and the architect of their recent national election victory. Whereas the vice president is a moral example to us all.
    (c) By the target’s stature. Greeting some no-name reporter’s question about ethics with the F-bomb is perfectly understandable, but dropping it on Senator Pat Leahy? Disgraceful!
    (d) By temperament. Oh, that’s just Rahm. You know Rahm.
    (e) By completely ignoring it.

    Look, I have to admit I get a kick out of reporters being told to go self-fornicate, regardless of party affiliation of the one inviting him to do so. However, I am interested in seeing which of the above reactions the left will have, especially since they got their Barney Frank Thongs in a bunch when Cheney told Leaky Leahy something similar.

    I do find it funny, though, that the topic of lobby reform is what got Rahm angier than Ted Kennedy in a dry county. The Dems haven't exactly been role models on that "culture of non-corruption" thingy, have they?

    Labels: ,

    Karma's a female dog, ain't it?

    From Patterico:
    Howard Dean and the DNC are being sued for defamation and discrimination by a former employee - claiming among other things that Dean discriminates against gays and violated the “D.C. Human Rights Act”.

    So much for that "Big Tent Party" thingy. Anywho, it's funny to see the top dawg of the party that caters to ambulance chasers getting this kind of treatment.

    Labels: , ,

    Padilla trial finally starting

    Those of you who have been here for two years or longer know how I feel about the José Padilla situation: I think the government sucks for what they've been doing to him. He's an American citizen, and thus entitled to Constitutional rights that have been deprived of him from the beginning. My prior thoughts are here.

    Anywho, his trial is now getting underway. From MyWay News:
    The trial of suspected al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla opened Monday with federal prosecutors arguing the U.S. citizen and two co-defendants provided money, recruits and military equipment to Islamic extremists involved in violence worldwide for nearly a decade.

    "The defendants were members of a secret organization, a terrorism support cell, based right here in South Florida," Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Frazier told jurors in his opening statement. "The defendants took concrete steps to support and promote this violence."
    Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and Muslim convert, has been in federal custody since his May 2002 arrest at O'Hare International Airport. He was initially accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States and held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant at a Navy brig, but those allegations are not part of the Miami indictment.

    He was added to the Miami case in late 2005 amid a legal battle over the president's wartime detention powers involving U.S. citizens. His lawyers had fought for years to get him before a federal judge.

    I think he's a scumsucking terrorist camelhumper who will be found guilty, but as as American citizen, he's still entitled to a speedy trial. This administration has argued against that, and I find their position reprehensible.

    Labels: ,

    Lanny Davis resigns from Bush administration

    Yes, you read that correctly. The same Lanny Davis who has been a Clinton sycophant for over a decade has been serving on the Bush administration. From MSNBC:
    The White House was hit by two sudden resignations late Monday when Paul McNulty, a top Justice Department official, and Lanny Davis, the only Democratic member of the president’s civil liberties watchdog board, announced they were stepping down. Both resignations are likely to fuel allegations of White House political meddling in law enforcement and national security issues.

    Two observations:

    1. Hey,'s that "new tone" thingy working for you? You can't throw bones to people who hate you, dude. Seriously, a Clintonista?

    2. Read this again: "White House political meddling in law enforcement and national security issues." If the president is the top law enforcement officer and national security official, then exactly how is it considered "meddling" in law enforcement and national security? I would argue that he's doing his job. Granted, we could debate on how well he's doing his job, but that's neither here nor there.


    Monday, May 14, 2007

    Audacity defined

    "Hypocrisy" doesn't even do the word justice. From Boston's online fishwrap:
    Cuba characterized American filmmaker Michael Moore as a victim of censorship and the U.S. trade embargo as it reported Friday on a U.S. Treasury Department probe of his March visit here for his upcoming health-care documentary, "Sicko."

    Moore took the trip, for a segment in the film, with about 10 ailing workers involved in the rescue effort at the World Trade Center ruins.

    The Communist Party daily Granma called the 45-year-old U.S. travel and trade sanctions "a criminal action that has cost lives and grave consequences for the inhabitants of the island," as well as Americans.

    "Any resemblance to McCarthyism is no coincidence," the newspaper opined, referring to the political witch hunt that U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy carried out against suspected American communists in the 1950s.

    The U.S. government's targeting of Moore "confirms the imperial philosophy of censorship" by American officials, it added.

    Cuba. Decrying censorship and McCarthyism. Man, does that Castro dude have a wicked sense of humor or what? I may have just officially seen it all.

    Labels: , ,

    P.C. almost allowed Fort Dix Six to carry out jihadist plot

    From the NY Post:
    It all began on a frigid January day with 10 bearded Muslim men huddled in the parking lot of a Circuit City debating who would go inside to have a copy made of a tape showing them firing guns and praising jihad.

    Eventually, the group - who'd been seen standing outside earlier that January 2006 week - selected two men to go inside while the rest waited in the parking lot, an employee who was outside smoking at the time recalled.

    Once inside, the two men approached the television section of the electronics store where videos could be transferred to DVD and copies could be made.

    They handed the teenage clerk a mini-cassette tape from a camcorder and asked for a $20 transfer to be made to DVD. As they waited, the two men calmly walked around the store looking at televisions, video games and DVDs.

    What they didn't know was that they had sealed their ultimate fate.

    When the teen and another employee went into a back room and began the conversion of the tape, they saw a group of bearded men wearing "fundamentalist attire" and shooting "big, f-ing guns," the teen later told co-workers.

    Throughout the 90-minute-long tape, above the booming gunfire at a Pennsylvania target range, the jihadists could be heard screaming "God is great!"

    The two employees "freaked out," their co-worker recalled.

    At first, the teenage clerk didn't know what to do, his pal said.

    "Dude, I just saw some really weird s-," he frantically told his co-worker. "I don't know what to do. Should I call someone or is that being racist?"

    Way to go, leftards. You have succeeded in making astute citizen observers second-guess themselves in assisting counterterrorism efforts. This young man's common sense prevailed, but he hesitated...and that tells me that other people might have been inclined to keep their mouths shut.

    I've said for some time that political correctness could be the death of us yet. I didn't go out on a limb with that prediction, now did I?

    Labels: , ,

    Al Qaeda cites Democrats as allies

    Well, at least we know who Al Qaeda likes. But don't think the Dems are soft on security or anything, just because the AQ camelhumpers like them! From Ace:
    Above the Fold Update: Al Qaeda knows who its allies are.
    Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.

    But he added: "I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him."

    Notice Al Qaeda is not pressuring us to stay, which is odd, because I keep being told that Al Qaeda loves having American troops in Iraq and Bush is "playing right into their hands."

    I don't think this is going to have the effect Al Qaeda seeks. It's getting harder and harder for the media to pretend that Al Qaeda isn't the major source of violence and terrorism in Iraq -- and the biggest cause of US troop deaths -- and they're going to have a hard time avoiding using the words "Al Qaeda" when they run these tapes.

    Question: Would these tapes be considered a "coordinated" media buy for the Democrats under McCain-Feingold? Will the FEC investigate?

    Maybe that's the way to get the media remotely perturbed at Al Qaeda -- we can sell them on the idea that "Al Qaeda is swift-boating Iraq." They really do seem to despise "swift-boating."

    Labels: , ,

    Carbon debits?

    We all know what a sham carbon, "offsets"/"credits"...are by now. Well, how about "carbon credits"? From Moonbattery:
    Are you annoyed at the way high-profile indulgers in conspicuous energy consumption like Al Gore attempt to exempt themselves from the sacrifices they demand of everyone else by purchasing phony carbon credits? Don't just grouse — do something about it. Counteract the carbon credits with carbon debits at

    Carbon debits can be purchased for as little as $5. With each carbon debit, will shred one living tree, send an email informing Al Gore, and send another to you certifying that you have done your part to put an end to the carbon credits scam.

    Various packages feature extras like having "I Took Away Your Carbon Credits" plaques sent to liberal friends. Those willing to spring for the Premier Carbon Debit Vacation Package get the following:

    Airfare to Arizona from any continental US state.
  • 1 day of carbon debiting using their tree-crushing FECON grinding head tractor — an average of 100 trees debited in a day.
  • 1 "My Carbon Footprint Is Bigger Than Yours" t-shirt with an imprint of you in the seat of the tree-killer.
  • 1 "Carbon Debit Gold Star Member" plaque.
  • 1 "I Took Away Your Carbon Credits" plaque sent to Al Gore.
  • 1 "I Increased My Carbon Footprint" t-shirt. can't guarantee they are actually harming the environment, since the trees are apparently slated for removal anyway, but they do promise that trees will be destroyed at your expense — which is more of a guarantee than gullible moonbats are getting from swindlers like TerraPass.

  • I abso-freakin'-lutely love it! I wish I had thought of it!


    Sunday, May 13, 2007

    Obama is anti-Wally...except when it comes to his own benefit

    Between Silky Pony's attempts to procure a Playstation 3 from the retail giant and this flap from the Barry O family, one has to wonder just how anti-Wal-Mart these idiots truly are. From the Telegraph:
    As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.

    Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy.

    Pfffffffff-bwahahahahahahahaha! Yeah, right...liberals lose a ton of sleep over being hypocrites! If you buy that, I've got some swampland here in fire-ravaged FL to sell you. Continuing:
    She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.

    And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.

    As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".

    Because Wal-Mart's desire to make money while saving peope money is soooo un-American. Continuing:
    According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 (£25,700) for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.

    She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.
    Joe Novak, a Chicago political consultant who runs an anti-Obama website, said: "The Obamas would have us believe that, when it comes to money and ethics and compassion, he is a different kind of politician.

    "What's different here is that they actually seem to believe it. That's the only way they can justify the contradictions between what they preach and what they practice. Defending Treehouse while attacking Wal-Mart is a blatant example of personal hypocrisy."

    Sen Obama's campaign team and Mrs Obama's spokesman did not respond to requests by The Sunday Telegraph for comment. But the senator previously told Crain's Chicago Business magazine that, while his views on corporate reform and social justice remained the same regardless of what happens at Treehouse, "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement".

    "I'm for the 'little guy', unless the peon gets in my way of making a buck." You duplicitous, self-righteous, hypocritical b@stard! My friends, that's the kind of hypocrisy that I truly loathe about the left and that I point out frequently about them: their "good enough for me, but not for thee" attitude. I have no tolerance for that pap, at all.

    See, Barry O thinks that Wal-Mart is evil and is not good for America. However, he's not above getting a nice little chunk of change off of them. What's worse than that, though, is his self-serving justification that he needed the money to pay taxes, save for retirement, and raise his kids. Are we to assume that he's the only one that has to do all of that, that no one else is doing it? He seems to imply that while other people's reasons to earn money are tainted, his are pure and noble.

    Sorry, Hussein, but that doesn't fly with me, and it sure as hell won't fly with normal America.

    Labels: , ,

    Friday, May 11, 2007

    Silky Pony to mimic Mondale

    From the AP:
    Presidential candidate John Edwards is offering more policy proposals than any other candidate in the primary and his ideas are winning loud applause from Democratic audiences.

    The question is whether other voters will cheer when they see the price tag — more than $125 billion a year.

    Edwards is quick to acknowledge his spending on health care, energy and poverty reduction comes at a cost, with more plans to come. All told, his proposals would equal more than $1 trillion if he could get them enacted into law and operational during two White House terms.
    Edwards says fixing the country's problems takes precedence over eliminating the deficit or offering middle-class tax relief like he proposed when running for president in the last election.

    "I think for me, as opposed to the additional tax relief for the middle class, what's more important is to give them relief from the extraordinary cost of health care, from gasoline prices, the things that they spend money on every single day that are escalating dramatically," Edwards said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

    To pay for some of his priorities, Edwards would roll back Bush's tax cuts on Americans making more than $200,000 a year. He also said he would consider raising capital gains taxes to help fund his plans and raise or eliminate the $90,000 cap on individual earnings subject to Social Security taxes to help cover the projected shortfall in the system.

    Hmmm. This sounds awfully familiar. Where have I heard this kind of "raise your taxes" thing before?
    Edwards' ideas have already opened him to accusations of being just another tax-and-spend liberal, a label put on Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee who said he would raise taxes and then lost 49 states to President Reagan.

    At least the only state Mondale won was his own state. That's more than Al Gore (and Silky Pony, in 2004) can say.

    Labels: , ,

    "Jabba the Hutt" Moore to be investigated for illegal trip to Cuba?

    Recall how award-winning fiction director Mikie Moore brought some 9/11 responders to Cuba for health care for his new mockumentary "Sicko"? The feds seem to have taken issue with that violation of federal law. From Breitbart/AP:
    Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore is under investigation by the U.S. Treasury Department for taking ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers to Cuba for a segment in his upcoming health-care documentary "Sicko," The Associated Press has learned.

    The investigation provides another contentious lead-in for a provocative film by Moore, a fierce critic of President Bush. In the past, Moore's adversaries have fanned publicity that helped the filmmaker create a new brand of opinionated blockbuster documentary.

    "Sicko" promises to take the health-care industry to task the way Moore confronted America's passion for guns in "Bowling for Columbine" and skewered Bush over his handling of Sept. 11 in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

    The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control notified Moore in a letter dated May 2 that it was conducting a civil investigation for possible violations of the U.S. trade embargo restricting travel to Cuba. A copy of the letter was obtained Wednesday by the AP.

    "This office has no record that a specific license was issued authorizing you to engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba," Dale Thompson, OFAC chief of general investigations and field operations, wrote in the letter to Moore.

    Granted, this kind of pub will likely drum up more interest in the socialist mockumentary. However, he's not above the law, and if there's any justice (I know, I know...dream on, right?), he'll be fined for his infraction.

    Labels: , , ,

    American moonbats don't have monopoly on calling Bush a Nazi

    Even the Russkies are getting in on the act of violating Godwin's Law. From NewsMax:
    Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a thinly veiled attack on the United States, comparing American foreign policy to the "Third Reich” in a speech on Wednesday.

    Putin’s comments were the latest in a series of Russian criticisms of the U.S. on Iraq, missile defense and NATO expansion, as the Russian leader maintains that America is striving to single-handedly dominate world affairs, the International Herald Tribune reported.

    Putin delivered the speech from a podium in front of Lenin’s Mausoleum on Red Square as he marked Victory Day, the 62nd anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany.

    That's rich, coming from the guy who is resorting to Soviet-style (and Nazi-like) freedom-squashing power grabs and intimidation tactics.


    Satire alert: Belgium to pick up France's slack

    Bookmark The Nose on Your Face now, or I'll replace the whole blog with a single page that reads repeated "All work and no play makes Jonathan a dull boy" a la The Shining. From TNOYF:
    Long resigned to their role as the “Garfunkel” of the international punchline community, Belgium has seen their stock rise sharply on the news of the recent French presidential election. Nicolas Sarkozy’s vocal pro-American stance, along with his large margin of victory, may shift the balance of French-bashing away from the traditional favorites; the French.

    “I have to be honest with you, I’m not all that familiar with the Belgians,” said Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania resident James Dyer. “But I better get up to speed quickly; they certainly aren’t going to just mock themselves. This election is a wake-up call for many of us in the France-mocking community, and we ignore the will of the people at our own peril.”

    Dyer went on to say that although he does not know a great deal about Belgians, he does have some generic taunts “that can be utilized until more specific ones can be crafted.”

    Experts say that more than anything, this election was a referendum on the cliched French taunting that has become prevalent in recent years.

    “The French have given us so much material for so long, that it became almost too easy to mock them,” said veteran Francophobe Jack O’Malley. “Surrender, crepes, effeminate males, the f***ing beret? Comedy gold. I think that many people, myself included, have become complacent, lazy. On another note, let me be the first to welcome the gay, John Ritter-adoring, waffle-vendors of Belgium into their new role. You’ll be hearing from us.”

    Labels: ,

    Mike Wallace asks Romney when he and Mrs. Romney first bumped uglies

    'Cuz that kind of thing is the single biggest issue of electability! From Hot Air:
    Charming. It’s suggested, although not definitively stated, that Ann Romney was sitting right there, too, when he asked it.
    Romney’s wife, Ann, who converted to the Mormon Church before they were married, is also interviewed. When asked whether they broke the strict church rule against premarital sex, Romney says, “No, I’m sorry, we do not get into those things,” but still managed to blurt out “The answer is no,” before ending that line of questioning.

    Mitt’s “the Mormon candidate,” you see, so the media’s entitled to ask him embarrassing, prurient questions about his sex life — strictly in the public interest, of course, as a gauge of hypocrisy. Stay tuned for Mike’s hard-hitting interview later this year with Hillary Clinton, a.k.a. “the woman candidate,” in which he introduces the issue of women’s health by asking her at what age she first menstruated.

    Way to ask the tough questions, Mike! Nicely done on getting to the bottom of the question that's tops on every American's mind today. What would CBS do without you (use another forged document, I suppose)? liberal media bias.

    Labels: ,

    KS guv got her marching orders from Dean

    Interesting allegations that the "moderate" Democrat governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, got her instructions from a guy that isn't held in very high regard in the red state of KS. From Hot Air:
    XM Radio’s Quinn & Rose made the allegation that DNC Chairman Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early Sunday morning and instructed her not to request federal assistance in recovery from the Greensburg tornado, and to lie about the federal response to date, on their show, The War Room, today. After I discussed the story via phone with both Quinn and Rose today, here’s what they sent me.
    PLEASE NOTE: The following is information we have received from a reliable source. We have never been misinformed by this person in the past.

    It seems that, on Sunday, a few hours after Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, made her remarks about Bush sending all their National Guard Members and Resources to Iraq, she made a call to Brownback

    Sebelius, was calling to apologize to the Senator for making the Political statements that she did. She explained that she did not believe them and that they actually had too many National Guardsmen show up.

    Governor Sebelius explained “Sam, you know how political everything is right now and we’re not allowed to let an opportunity like this just pass.” She continued “I made sure not to blame you or Pat (Senator Roberts?) or anybody outside the White House. With his (Bush’s) numbers, you can’t really blame me for usin’ that.”

    Then Sebelius explained the path to her comments. After Brownback told her that he was very disappointed in her, She pleaded “You know me Sam, I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t have to.” She declared “Howard (Dean) called me around 5 o’clock (in the morning) and told me not to ask The White House for any help or make any statements until I heard back. Dick (Durban?) called me an hour or 2 later and that’s when he told me we needed to use this ‘n’ said to talk about the Guard all bein’ at war.”

    She then explained the thinking; “Speaker and Harry got so much heat on them from both sides over this damn war, ‘n’ they need to get the press on somethin’ else. I didn’t think it was right to use it like this either, but I didn’t see’s I had much choice in this climate, Sam.”

    She the[n] apologized a few more times and promised that she’d try to move away from the comment when she and Brownback were to meet up later and tour the damage, but she had to so it without disappointing Dean and Pelosi.

    I asked them to characterize their source, and they replied that she or he would be in a position to have knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Brownback and Gov. Sebelius and has never misinformed them before. Sean Hannity has called Sen. Brownback’s office to either verify or debunk the story, but so far the senator has done neither. There is word that the senator may attempt a “limited hangout” strategy this weekend, in which he acknowledges that the conversation took place but won’t remember the Dean angle. Such a strategy, if that’s what Sen. Brownback does, might be an attempt to maintain comity in what has until now been by all accounts a smooth relationship between the Democratic governor and Republican officials in Kansas. Comity shouldn’t come at the price of truth, however.

    Nice to see that the guv has her state's best interests at heart instead of her party's interests. Delaying assistance so you can blame the easy target? I'm sure the families in Greensburg, KS, will be grateful, Ms. Sebelius. "Moderate", my derrière!

    Labels: ,

    Tax revenue at highest is government spending

    According to the MSM, Bush gets no credit for the tax revenues, but he gets blamed for the record spending. From the AP:
    Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.
    Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.

    So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.

    Tax collections swell in April every year as individuals file their tax returns by the deadline.

    Note the little disclaimer there? Tax collections "swell every April", so don't read anything into it, right? Well, they still "swelled" to record highs, right?

    Before I get accused of leading some Dubya cheerleading brigade here, this also needs to be pointed out:
    For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.

    However, the spending total of $1.585 trillion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year.

    The spending total may be up at a slower pace, but it's still up...and way too high, too. The feds are still spending about $80 billion more than they're taking in. If I tried that, I'm pretty sure my bank would be calling me up post haste.

    The AP ends up contradicting itself in this paragraph:
    ...But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush's tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.

    Didn't they just get done telling us that revenues were at an all-time high? They didn't attribute the revenue increase to the tax cuts, but they darned sure attributed the red ink to the tax cuts, now didn't they? Economic ignorance or media bias? You be the judge.

    At any rate, let's not ignore the obvious here: tax cuts have increased the money coming in to the government, and the spend-happy Bush and Republican Party (when they ran the legislature) spent all that money and then some. Republicans they are, conservatives they are not.

    That's like your boss giving you a Christmas bonus of $10,000 and you go spend it on a down payment on a $50,000 car. You had an extra $10k that you managed to turn into a $40k debt. Of course, if you're a liberal, you blame the debt on the Christmas bonus (or your boss for giving you the bonus) instead of how you spent it.

    Labels: ,

    Thursday, May 10, 2007

    Baltimoron city spokesman endorses vandalism

    In another shining example of how the left vandalizes when they're p#ssed, here you have a billboard in Baltimore that was defaced...and a spokesman for the city department responsible for, among other things, a clean infrastructure saluted the vandalism effort. From the Baltimore fishwrap:
    Apparently, somebody in Baltimore isn't a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

    A large billboard advertising local air times for the conservative radio talk-show host has been defaced.

    Robert Murrow, a spokesman for the city's Department of Public Works, saw the vandalism as he drove to work this morning on I-83 near the Guilford Avenue exit. He called The Sun, saying that someone had poured paint on the image of Limbaugh's face.

    Limbaugh, who is nationally syndicated, can be heard on WCBM 680 AM from noon to 3 p.m.

    "It looks like they took globs of paint and threw it on his face. It looks great. It did my heart good," said Murrow, who admittedly is not a Limbaugh fan.

    Needless to say, Murrow's not that bright or he would be in a higher position than he is. Murrow's boss shows the common sense and decency that Murrow lacks:
    Kurt L. Kocher, chief spokesman for the city's Department of Public Works and Murrow's supervisor, took issue with Murrow's statement.

    "As much as you don't like Rush Limbaugh, you don't endorse vandalism, period," Kocher said. "It's an outrageous comment, and he shouldn't have said it. It is not our policy. I think he got overenthusiastic about his feelings for Mr. Limbaugh. I am very upset about that comment, and I've let him know I'm very upset about that comment. It's his personal comment and it's wrong. It does not belong out there in any kind of official capacity. As far as I'm concerned, he was not speaking for the department."

    Should you wish to give Mr. Murrow some "constructive advice", feel free to e-mail him here.

    Labels: , ,

    Cheating dental school students...Bush's fault!

    Remember just a couple of posts ago when I said "I have officially seen it all"? I was premature in that assessment. From Indiana:
    Nearly half the students in the Indiana University School of Dentistry's second-year class have been disciplined for their roles in a cheating scandal in which students broke into password-protected files to view exam material before tests.
    "I see this as being a widespread problem, not just in dentistry," said Dr. Anne Koerber, an associate professor of dentistry at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has written about the ethics of dental education.

    "When you have persons in high places who clearly lie about what's happening with weapons of mass destruction, or CEOs who lie about where the money is going, I think the general public gets the idea that anything that makes money is what's right."

    You read it correctly, folks. According to this pointy-headed pseudo-intellectual "professor", the reason that these kids cheated on a dental school exam was because "Bush lied". Oh, and also because CEO's make (and embezzle) a lot of money.

    If we're going to inject politics into the equation, could we not say this? "When you have persons in high places lying under oath (committing perjury) and obstructing justice, and teaching our youth that oral sex is not sex, I think the general public gets the idea that anything that makes you happy, regardless of the legality, is what's right."

    How about seeing this for what it is (a cheating scandal) and not for what it isn't (politics)?

    Labels: ,

    comPost whitewashes Beserkeley Dem's image

    Lois Romano of the Washington comPost has quite the puff piece on Berkeley moonbat Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). Excerpt:
    Lee, 60, is soft-spoken and is no lefty flame thrower. The daughter of a veteran of two wars (whom she still calls "Colonel"), she says she is not a pacifist.

    I don't know how anyone could think she is a pacifist. I mean, it's not like she was the only member of either chamber of Congress to vote against a response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Oh, wait a minute...yes she was.

    Well, it's not like she was the only member of her party to vote against dropping bombs in Serbia over the ethnic cleansing grounds of Kosovo. Oh, wait a minute...yes she was.

    Hmmmm. Well, if it's all the same to you, I'm gonna go ahead and tag her with the "pacifist" label.

    Labels: ,

    NYT: Our data mining is good, W's is bad

    How many times have I illustrated over the last three years that liberals live in a "good enough for me, but not for thee" world? More times than Mikie Moore hits his neighborhood dim-sum joint. From Ace:
    In the Village Voice. The only good thing about leftist rags is that they hate establishment liberals almost as much as they hate conservatives.
    Barely a year after their reporters won a Pulitzer prize for exposing data mining of ordinary citizens by a government spy agency, New York Times officials had some exciting news for stockholders last week: The Times company plans to do its own data mining of ordinary citizens, in the name of online profits.
    The news didn't make everyone all googly-eyed. In fact, some people at the paper's annual stockholders meeting in the New Amsterdam Theatre exchanged confused looks when Janet Robinson, the company's president and CEO, uttered the phrase "data mining." Wasn't that the nefarious, 21st-century sort of snooping that the National Security Agency was doing without warrants on American citizens? Wasn't that the whole subject of the prizewinning work in December 2005 by Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen?

    And hadn't the company's chairman and publisher, Pinch Sulzberger, already trotted out Pulitzers earlier in the program?

    Yes, yes, and yes. But Robinson was talking about money this time. Data mining, she told the crowd, would be used "to determine hidden patterns of uses to our website." ...

    Do readers really want data-mining behavior from their newspapers—not just the Times but every other big media outlet? Do they want newspaper databases to store reading histories, minute by minute, until one day the government shows up to examine ordinary citizens' shopping and viewing and chatting habits in detail? If you think it can't happen, ask the librarians who've been told to hand over readers' checkout records under the Patriot Act.

    It was pointed out at the time of the NYT's revelations that data-mining was quite common in everyday business and marketing. The Times, nevertheless, pushed forward its editorial line that data-mining was dangerous, invasive, and patently unAmerican.

    How the Times has changed.

    Translation: data mining for terrorist activity is a horrible invasion of privacy; but data mining for profit is an acceptable business model. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Obviously, W should have found a way to parlay his intercepts into some ca$h in order to pass the NYT's smell test.

    Labels: ,