Crush Liberalism

Crush Liberalism's new home!

2007-07-27T20:00:00.000-04:00

THE MOVE IS COMPLETE!

Please update your bookmarks to the new home of Crush Liberalism:

http://www.crushliberalism.com

No more having to remember ".blogspot.com" or even the new destination of ".wordpress.com"! If you don't update your bookmarks, that's OK, since you can just click on the link in this post to whisk you away to my more lush accommodations!

I'll probably be experimenting with different color and image schemes over the next few days, but aside from that, everything is ready to roll, so comment away!

PROS: New layout, new commenting mechanism (i.e. NO HALOSCAN!), better reliability that both Blogger and Haloscan, easier to remember domain name...what's not to like?

CONS: Only one, really, that I can think of: the Haloscan comments from prior posts can't import. They'll still be here at Blogger for posterity, if you just really want to see what you or someone else has said over the last three years. Then again, who wouldn't want to occasionally take a walk down Memory Lane and see the punking that navywife and her ilk received? :-D

UPDATE: Changes coming soon

2007-07-26T07:52:00.000-04:00

Haloscan sucks. Period. If you leave a comment, you may get a message telling you "The service is unavailable" or something to that effect. It's been happening a lot lately (along with other problems from a moderator's view) that are just unacceptable. So, I've finally had it.

I will be spending some time reviewing other commenting mechanisms before settling on one. I may even move this blog to Wordpress, and kill two birds with one stone (Blogger and Haloscan). Either way, I'm fed up with this. It's often frustrating enough to make me want to give this blogging thing up altogether.

UPDATE (7/26/2007 - 11:04 A.M. EST): I am sooooooooo at Wordpress! Once I figure out how to import the Haloscan comments to Wordpress, then Blogger will go the way of the Whig Party. Once that happens, I'll put a redirect here so you won't have to update your bookmarks.

UPDATE (7/26/2007 - 01:52 P.M. EST): After a lot of research, it looks like there is no easy way to import Haloscan comments into Wordpress. However, I think I'm going to leave this blog in place here on Blogger so folks can access prior comments if they want to. Rest assured, though, that every post I've ever made is now at Wordpress (just without the comments, that's all). Basically, in the next day or two, you'll see a post here with a link to Crush Liberalism's new home. Stay tuned! :-)

UPDATE (7/27/2007 - 08:32 A.M. EST): The domain has been registered, DNS settings are propagating, etc. In non-techie speak, that means I should be up and running today (possibly before lunch). STAY TUNED!

Light posting over the next day or so

2007-07-25T10:10:00.000-04:00

Posting may be light over the next day or two because I've got strep throat, so I'll be in bed quite a bit. I'll moderate comments as often as I can, so please, keep the comments coming.

Absurd question of the day

2007-07-25T10:08:00.001-04:00

The question posed on the cover of the Esquire magazine that tabbed Silky Pony as "Sexiest Woman Alive" is this: “Can a white man still be elected president?”

Let me think about that. Total white men elected president thus far: 43. Total who don't fall into the "white man" category elected president thus far: 0.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the answer to such a patently absurd question is "Yeah!"

Today's "Damn that global 'warming'" update

2007-07-24T21:25:00.000-04:00

From al-Reuters:

The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.

The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.

"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.
...
Despite the downgraded forecast, WSI still expects the 2007 season to be more active than last year, and added that storm-weary parts of the Gulf Coast could still be hit.

"We feel the general threat to the western Gulf is reduced slightly, with a corresponding increase in the threat to the eastern Gulf and Florida," Crawford said.

Let's see: after a busy 2005 hurricane season (blamed by various nutbars, including the Goreacle, on global "warming"), we were told 2006 would be just as busy as 2005. We got nothing, especially here in Florida. Then we were told that 2007 would be busy, and now we're being told that due to (** snicker **) colder than expected temperatures, 2007 is being revised downward.

Three exit questions: (1) At what point can we stop referring to these people as "experts"? (2) How have these shysters managed to convince people to keep paying them for their chronically wrong forecasts? (3) Considering that this has been an unseasonably cool year (some might say it's a cool cycle?), can we please get off the Chicken Littleism that the treehuggers have been spewing our way?

Ward Churchill fired, MSM carries his water

2007-07-24T21:09:00.000-04:00

From Hot Air:

U of C’s president recommended that they fire him — for plagiarism and fabricating data, remember, not for his politics — back on May 30 so it’s a fait accompli that the axe will fall. In so doing, the university rids itself of a PR disaster and “Chutch” finally gets the role he was born to play, that of the truth-speaking “brown person” whose dissent the man just can’t handle. Win/win.
...
Update: The school president and head of the board of regents went out of their way afterwards to emphasize that it was his ethical lapses that sunk him, not his political views. The AP headline: “Professor fired for 9/11-Nazi comparison.”

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Shrillary the "moderate" to attend nutroots convention

2007-07-24T19:36:00.000-04:00

Spurning the "centrist" (in name, anyway) Democratic Leadership Council that her hubby was a part of, Her Highness is aligning herself with the Kos kooks by going to their annual tinfoil fest. From Michelle Malkin:

Hillary is worried about her left flank. How worried? She has made a decision to allow her communications director to go on The O’Reilly Factor tonight to defend Hillary’s upcoming appearance at the Yearly Kos convention.
...
Live by the nutroots, die by the nutroots. Hillary has proved a dumb investor before. Cattle futures, anyone?

It’s only a matter of time before she discovers how unwise her netroots investment is. Tinfoil, anyone?

From the '06 Kostards konvention. You just can't make this up!

Quote of the day

2007-07-24T19:27:00.000-04:00

I wasn't kidding when I said that Silky Pony is a cornucopia of material. If it's not a $1200 'do or the cover of Esquire as "Sexiest Woman Alive" (or at least, close enough to the label to warrant a double-take), it's stuff like this:

At the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate Monday night, each candidate had to turn and say something about the man or woman to his or her left. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) had this to say about the woman who spent eight years in the White House: “I admire what Sen. Clinton has done for America, what her husband did for America,” he said, facing Hillary Rodham Clinton. And then came the potshot: “Um, I’m not sure about that coat.”

Because salmon instead of coral is sooooooooooo "fashion faux pas"!

New host for "The Price is Right"

2007-07-24T09:12:00.000-04:00

Fortunately, Rosie O'Qaeda wasn't chosen to replace Bob Barker. However, it looks like Drew Carey is going to be the guy. Bob Barker is said to be pleased with the choice, so if it's good enough for Bob AND it's not Rosie O, then it's good enough for me.

"Democrats Seek Session With Bush on Spending"

2007-07-24T08:18:00.000-04:00

Isn't that sort of like wanting to meet with Ted Kennedy on sobriety? Anywho, from the Old Gray Hag:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, have asked for a meeting with President Bush to see if they can work out an agreement on spending bills for the fiscal year that begins in 10 weeks. But lawmakers from both parties said they saw no obvious way to overcome the current stalemate with the White House.

The House has passed 8 of the 12 regular appropriations bills for 2008, and Mr. Bush threatened to veto 5 of them, on the ground that they called for “an irresponsible and excessive level of spending.”
...
James P. Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said, “The president is playing to his conservative base, trying to pick a fight with Congress over spending policies.”

It's a darned shame that Bush didn't have that same commitment to fiscal discipline when his party was running the show. Who knows? They may still have power today if it weren't for their "drunken sailor" spending ways.

Kos kooks are...moderate?

2007-07-23T14:19:00.000-04:00

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink, lest it project from ye nostrils. From NewsBusters:

Sometimes when you see NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News, you are left scratching your head wondering what planet he lives on, and what the color of the sky is there.

Such questions must certainly have been raised in the minds of right-thinking "Fox News Sunday" viewers this morning when Williams suggested that the liberal blog Daily Kos "is now center."

I kid you not.

What precipitated this extraordinary lapse of reason on Williams' part was a rather accurate observation made by the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol concerning Democrat presidential candidates attending the upcoming YearlyKos convention.
Every Democratic presidential nominee is going to the Daily Kos convention. That's the left-wing blogger who was not respectable three or four years ago. The Howard Dean kind of sponsor. Now the whole party is going to pay court to him and to left wing blogs. Not a single one is going to the Democratic Leadership Council meeting in a couple of weeks. That's the organization that Bill Clinton was head of in the early '90s - that was supposed to be the new, more moderate Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has gone left and it will hurt them in 2008.

Makes sense, right? After all, the DLC was indeed crucial for Clinton's success in the '90s. Yet, the past two Democrat presidential candidates have shied away from this group, and its tenets, moving further to the left, and not winning their respective elections.

With this in mind, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that Democrat presidential candidates who follow Al Gore and John Kerry's leftist playbook rather than the successful, though disingenuous, moderate campaign of Bill Clinton will have a hard time winning in the general election.

Not so surprisingly, Williams saw things differently:
What you described as left is now center. The majority of the American people, 70 percent, want us out of Iraq. In fact, if you asked Iraqis, 60 some percent of Iraqis say we're doing more harm than good in Iraq. There's a center here and I think what you're saying is they're playing somehow to the left.

Even if the only issue on voters' minds was Iraq, Williams' point would be way off base.
...
In fact, CBSNews.com's article on this poll stated that "Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed think the war should be funded only if there's a timetable for withdrawal...while 8 percent think all funding for the war should be blocked, no matter what."

The Kossacks are part of that 8 percent who want funding blocked now no matter what.

Therefore, even on this one issue, it is specious of Williams to suggest that the folks at Daily Kos are either in the center or representative of the majority view.

Nice try, Juan.

The Kostards...centrists? In other related news, Hell freezes over.

Ninth Circus Court: Shell can't drill for oil, since it might piss off polar bears

2007-07-23T12:25:00.000-04:00

From FNC:

A federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling program off the north coast of Alaska at least until a hearing in August.

The order, issued Thursday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, comes after the federal Minerals Management Service in February approved Shell's offshore exploration plan for the Beaufort Sea.

"Vessels currently located in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas shall cease all operations performed in furtherance of that program, but need not depart the area," the order said.

Opponents contend that the Minerals Management Service approved Shell's plan without fully considering that a large spill would harm marine mammals, including bowhead and beluga whales. They say polar bears could also be harmed, and they question whether cleaning up a sizable spill would even be possible in the icy waters.

As Van Helsing notes:

A hearing is planned for mid August in San Francisco to decided if Shell can go forward and provide us with some oil, after bidding $39 million for the offshore leases, and blowing who knows how much on court costs.

If not, no problem: we can just keep paying through the nose to buy oil from Arabs, who will spend the proceeds on madrasahs and weapons programs. Hopefully the polar bears and beluga whales will appreciate it.

Daily humor

2007-07-23T10:06:00.000-04:00

Blue state lunacy, criminal alien edition

2007-07-23T09:17:00.001-04:00

From WND (hat tip to Moonbattery):

Spring Valley, Mayor George Darden won't be facing state civil or criminal charges for hiring illegal aliens to work on an urban revitalization project in his village, but Department of Labor officials informed him yesterday that the $10 an hour he paid 10 men doesn't comply with the state's prevailing wage law and taxpayers will have to pay the illegals the difference of about $30 an hour.

Darden has been under fire this week since the White Plains Journal News reported a village employee from the Department of Public Works Tuesday using a village truck to pick up two day laborers from a popular roadside hiring site and driving them back to Main Street to clean out a building slated for demolition. The village employee said he was "following orders" when he transported the illegal aliens.
...
Darden acknowledged paying the men in cash. At a Tuesday news conference, he did not say whether taxes were withheld on their wages.

"To pay $10 an hour," said Sandoval, was "a lot of work for little money."

Now, thanks to New York's prevailing wage law, Sandoval and his fellow illegal aliens will be paid $40 an hour – including taxes – for their work.

Darden won't face prosecution for violating the state's wage law, said Chris Perham of the Department of Labor.

"This is a first offense and in such cases we explained the laws," Perham said. "After that first chance, we will hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

Too bad they won't hold the criminal aliens accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Shays drops profanity-laced tirade on Capitol cop

2007-07-23T09:09:00.000-04:00

The sense of entitlement in D.C. is clearly a bipartisan one. From Politico:

On Thursday afternoon, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) got into a loud, angry dispute with a U.S. Capitol Police officer at the security checkpoint inside the entrance of the West Side of the Capitol. On Friday, Shays, a veteran lawmaker, offered a public apology for the incident and said that he wants to meet with the officer personally to reiterate how sorry he is.

Shays reportedly grabbed the officer during the dispute over whether the officer should allow a group of tourists to enter the building, said several sources. Tourists are not allowed to use the West Front entrance, but Shays was trying to bring the group through that entrance anyway. The officer refused to allow them in, and Shays then "yelled and screamed" at the officer, including using profanity, the sources said.

Freakin' wonderful...Shays is turning into the GOP's Cynthia McKinney! Hey, Shays, I've got a response for you in a language that you can understand: You, sir, are an a$$h0le!

Reid gets Clintonesque with meaning of "compromise"

2007-07-23T07:59:00.000-04:00

From the LA Slimes:

Sen. Harry Reid offered his cooperation in December when the Iraq Study Group unveiled its recommendations with a plaintive call for a bipartisan effort to change the course of the war.

"Democrats will work with our Republican colleagues," promised the Nevada Democrat and soon-to-be majority leader, just weeks after an election that swept Democrats into the congressional majority on a wave of public frustration over Iraq.

Eight bitter months and nine major Iraq-related votes later, the meaning of Reid's pledge has come into sharp focus: Democrats will work with any GOP lawmaker willing to vote for a mandatory troop withdrawal; other Republicans need not apply.

This bellicose, uncompromising legislative strategy — on display again this week as Reid refused to allow votes on nonbinding GOP-backed Iraq proposals — has been an obstacle to any real bipartisan compromise on the war all year. And it effectively ended any chance that a significant number of Republican lawmakers critical of the war would join with Democrats this summer on any Iraq-related legislation.

The Democratic strategy has yet to yield many tangible results. Just eight of the 250 Republicans in the House and Senate have joined with Democrats calling for a withdrawal.

Excellent leadership, Harry. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Silky in Men's Vogue

2007-07-23T07:53:00.001-04:00

Ace has the same reaction I had: Men's Vogue?

Men's Vogue?

Men's Vogue?

What the hell is that?
The hair, up close, is peppered with tiny strands of blond. Chestnut brown and so finely trimmed, mellifluous, smooth, and feathery, it could almost be a weave, the Platonic ideal as imagined by the Hair Club for Men. Along with the piercing blue eyes, slashing V-shaped smile, and a shimmering burgundy shirt tucked into stonewashed Levi's resting low on the hips, the hair completes the man: John Edwards, a populist Adonis, a golden god of a Southern Democrat.

Ah. I see.

The post (titled "John Edwards: Totally, Totally Not Gay") is about three weeks old, and I swear I don't know how I missed it. But this is just too much:

Silky: Sexist WOMAN alive? LOL!

Haditha Marine's father speaks with Abscam Jack

2007-07-23T07:24:00.000-04:00

From the Freepers:

Haditha Marine Dad speaks to John Murtha

Throughout this Haditha investigation our family has believed in the innocence of our son L/Cpl Justin Sharratt- we knew he was innocent. There are things I do not understand and I would like to find the answers. We do not seek revenge, but we would like to see justice. In a conversation with Congressman John Murtha, my questions still remain unanswered. With the help of the American people, I hope to find justice.

On Wednesday morning, July 17th I spoke with Congressman John Murtha via telephone from his Washington, DC office. We had a courteous conversation. I knew what to expect from a career politician and Congressman Murtha did not disappoint. Mr. Murtha avoided answering the hard questions and I was unable to press him for the answers. I wanted the conversation to remain amicable and decided to let him speak and avoid a heated confrontation.

At no time during the dialogue would Mr. Murtha acknowledge the impending exoneration of my son. I pressed him to use the word exoneration but the best I could get was “things seem to have gone well in your son’s Article 32. The General is a fair man and I believe he will do the right thing.” I replied, “ Lt. Col Paul Ware presented a strong recommendation for exoneration and we are anticipating Lt. Gen James Mattis following this recommendation.”

Mr. Murtha asked me if I had served in the military. He recalled his visits with injured Marines, soldiers and sailors. He said he supports our troops and it is the war he does not condone. Mr Murtha believes combat operations in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our Armed Forces. The stress of combat situations has led our troops to kill innocent civilians. I pointed out to Mr. Murtha, “ Our Haditha Marines are innocent until proven guilty.” It seems he is again denying our Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Mr. Murtha replied that we have a Marine(Mendoza) testifying that innocent women and children were killed in Haditha. I retorted that he is again believing the reports of the media and Mendoza was granted immunity for his lies. Mendoza has changed his testimony at least two times. NCIS may have threatened him with deportation and denial of US citizenship. This time I scolded him, “ I witnessed their(NCIS) conduct first hand in my son’s Article 32.”

I questioned Congressman Murtha as to his statements of 17 May 2006. On national television, in front of millions of Americans, he stated “ Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” I asked him why he denied these Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Again the Congressman used his experience to side step the answer. Mr. Murtha stated his intentions were to point out the stress our military was under in Iraq. He replied we would not win the hearts of the Iraqi people by killing women and children. I again snapped, “ Our Haditha Marines have not been convicted of killing innocents and are innocent until proven guilty.”

I believe this conversation was the first step in obtaining justice for Our Haditha Marines. I did not expect Mr. Murtha to admit to or apologize for any wrongdoing in his role to railroad my son and his Marine comrades. The American people now know that his unfounded and untruthful allegations were used to further his political agenda. It is my intention to ask the Congress of the United States to censure Representative John Murtha and hold hearings to explain his conduct in respect to the Haditha incident. I will ask the American people to question his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of Our Haditha Marines. I will campaign to the voters of Pa Congressional District 12 to oust Representative Murtha from his elected office. The American people deserve better, we must demand better representation from our elected officials.

What a despicable human being Abscam Jack Murtha is! Kudos to Mr. Sharratt for putting Murtha in his place, even if Murtha is too vile and stupid to realize it.

38th anniversary

2007-07-20T10:49:00.000-04:00

Old Soldier reminded me of this yesterday, so my apologies for being a day late (story of my life, huh?). Yesterday was the 38th anniversary of Chappaquiddick, where, as you all know, Ted Kennedrunk killed a woman in his car by allowing her to drown while he wandered up the road and pondered the political ramifications of his actions. Full details here, if you can stomach it.

I do not ever wish physical harm on an American politician simply because they are ideological opposites. As much as I detest Reid, Pelosi, et al, I do not wish ill upon them. Having said that, God forgive me but I find myself wishing ill on Ted Kennedrunk every time that pickled murderous windbag opens his ample cakehole and bloviates about anybody being morally bankrupt liars! The fact that many on the left gravitate towards this cretin is proof positive of the inherent depravity of those people.

Headline of the day

2007-07-20T08:46:00.000-04:00

File this under "things I couldn't make up if I tried", from the Montgomery Advertiser. Headline: "Local Obesity Conference Draws Large Crowd"

Quote of the day

2007-07-20T08:40:00.000-04:00

From the San Franistan fishwrap:

Democratic Senate leaders knew going into Wednesday's procedural roll call on their proposal to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq that they didn't have the votes to win, but victory wasn't their goal.

What else is new?

Olbermann's "chickenhawk" slur turned on him

2007-07-20T07:58:00.000-04:00

Ace does a wonderful job of ripping the mind-numbed leftist myrmidons' "chickenhawk" reflex, in light of that little-watched MSNBC moonbat's recent rant:

Olbermann's Theatre of the Absurd ends with his calling upon Bush to go to Baghdad and fight "his war" himself.

Again, the chickenhawk charge -- one should be willing to fight wars one advocates, yes?

But the trouble is that part of Olbermann's, and the entire left's, schtick is that they're really super-tough guys after all -- not cheese-eating surrender monkeys -- because, while they don't want to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, they're just totally gung ho to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan. In fact, the subtext very often seems to be that it's just the stubborn President Bush who is preventing them from grabbing a rifle and hopping on the next plane to Waziristan.

Question for Mr. Olbermann:

When, Sir, can we expect word of your enlistment? To fight in what is, by your own admission -- nay, bold proclamation -- what is in fact your war?

Breaking the MSM embargo, Ralph Peters finally makes the point I've been making for years.
The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. It doesn't say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever - although that's what the Dems imply.

In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?

Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.

Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.

Oh, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.

Barack Obama, strategist and military expert. Who knew?

I don't believe any Democrat actually wants to fight wars against Al Qaeda, or anyone else, anywhere at all. But they claim they do, they advocate for huge invasions of 100 million strong nuclear-armed countries, and of course they vote for any stray declaration of war that should reach their desks within 60 days of an election.

So if they are all gung-ho to finally "finish the job Bush wouldn't" in Islamabad and Karachi, I trust they know we need more troops -- and the army does in fact permit liberals to serve openly as such. There is no "don't ask, don't tell" rule about being a leftist jagoff, I can assure them all.

So:

When's the big sign-up day all you super badass warriors have planned? Is it a big surprise you're waiting to spring on the rest of the country?

I trust they're just waiting to receive and read the new Harry Potter book, and then they'll be training to storm the beaches of Southern Pakistan presently.

No thinking required for Olby and his ilk.

Dems side with terrorists and trial lawyers over American security

2007-07-20T07:39:00.000-04:00

Feel free to question not just their patriotism, but their sanity. From Hot Air:

Whose water are the Democrats carrying on this? It seems to come down to two suspects — trial lawyers or the mau mauers at CAIR. Or both.
Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the “John Doe” protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling. Because, of course, racial profiling is so much worse than losing a city full of innocent people.
...
Update: It’s just breaking that the Democrats actually spiked the John Doe proposal in committee. They have exposed to Americans to more terrorism and the threat of lawsuit at the same time. They really ought to reap the whirlwind for this.

If the Democrats get their way, ordinary Americans like Brian Morganstern will have to weigh the threat of lawsuit when they decide whether to trust their gut when they see or hear something suspicious. Some will choose to avoid the lawsuit, and Americans will die.

As for me, I am John Doe.

As am I.

Plame lawsuit chucked to the weeds

2007-07-20T07:27:00.000-04:00

From My Way News:

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame lost a lawsuit Thursday that demanded money from Bush administration officials whom she blamed for leaking her agency identity.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to disclose her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame's lawyers said from the beginning the suit would be a difficult case to make. Public officials normally are immune from such suits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame's identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration's march to war in Iraq.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.
...
Though Bates said the case raised "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he said there was no legal basis for the suit.

Lawyers have said courts traditionally are reluctant to wade into these types of cases, particularly when Congress has established other resolutions.

In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame's claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.

Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials," Bates said.

The suit was dismissed "purely on jurisdictional grounds", huh? Well, as Texas Rainmaker (himself an attorney) points out...:

For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution.

Put that in your bong and smoke it, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.

Quote of the day

2007-07-19T13:51:00.000-04:00

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink pronto. You have been warned! From Newsbusters:

Most of Dan Rather's pontifications on today's "Morning Joe" rolled off my back, as I flipped between his performance and that of Tiger Woods over the closing holes at Carnoustie.

But something made me sit up and take notice. At 8:34 A.M. EDT, Rather suddenly blurted out: "I'm big on personal responsibility." And yes, he managed to do so without laughing.

Oh. My. ~~God~~ (insert deity du jour here).

This is the same guy who put demonstrably fake documents on the air in his bid to bring down Bush a few weeks before the presidential election of 2004, then stood by as Mary Mapes and three other high-level executive henchmen took the fall, then just last year continued to stand by the since debunked "fake but accurate" story? Dan freakin' Rather was trying to convince us that he's all about "personal responsibility"?

I am marking on my calendar that Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 1:50 p.m. EST, I have officially seen everything.

Big Dem donor is a "staunch Republican" in eyes of reporter

2007-07-19T10:57:00.000-04:00

In the spirit of Bubba, I opine that "it depends on the meaning of the words 'staunch' and 'Republican'"! From Michelle Malkin:

Great catch here by Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters on a Chicago Sun-Times reporter’s magical transformation of a big Democrat contributor into a “staunch Republican.” Presto change-o:
Why is it that every time the MSM writes a story about a supposedly “staunch Republican” who is vocally supporting the opposing Party, we have to wonder of its veracity? Maybe it’s because there always seems to be a few little problems with the claim of “staunchness” on the part of the MSM’s favored Party hopper du jour? And in this case, the Chicago Sun-Times story titled “GOP lawyer sold on Dems” by Jennifer Hunter, we have no better assurances than we ever do that the claimed “staunch Republican” is either very “staunch” or very “Republican.”

Sun-Times writer Hunter dug up a supposedly “staunch Republican” named Jim Ronca, a trial lawyer from Pennsylvania. Mr. Ronca, claims Hunter, is “certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.”

But there is more than that. He also says he’ll financially support Democrats, and he makes this announcement as if this is somehow an earth shattering rebuke to the GOP, or so the Sun-Times wishes us to believe.

Here is the kicker from Hunter’s story:
“I’m not only going to vote Democratic, I’m going to financially support the Democrats,” Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. “The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment.”

Judging from his public donation record, though, this “staunch Republican” also apparently believes that Republicans everywhere else are an “embarrassment,” too. Check out the majority of his political contributions:

$1,000 Harris Wofford (Democrat, PA) 6/22/1994
$250 Charles Oberly (Democrat, PA) 10/3/1994
$500 Edward Kennedy (Democrat, MA) 11/16/1995
$250 Stewart Greenleaf (Republican, PA) 12/29/1999
$250 Patrick Casey (Democrat, PA) 6/3/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 6/13/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 9/15/2000
$500 Arlen Specter (Republican, PA) 11/5/2001
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 3/30/2004
$2,000 John Kerry (Democrat, MA) 5/27/2004
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 8/23/2005
$1,000 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/13/2006
$500 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/30/2005
$500 Bruce Braley 9/5/2006

Conservatives on the Internet asked Hunter to explain. Her reaction? A column complaining about: 1) how mean the Internet watchdogs are; 2) how readers should blame her editor, not her; and 3) how one registered Republican just decided he’s supporting Hillary, so no one should complain about her embarrassingly inaccurate description of Ronca as a “staunch Republican.”

The thanks you get...

Is it possible that Republicans are fed up with Bush and the party's current "leaders" to the point that they're leaving the party? Of course it is! But to define a Democrat trial lawyer who has been giving the majority of his money to Democrats before Bush got elected as a "staunch Republican" is disingenuous and a bastardization of the English language that ol' Bubba can appreciate.

This is a dishonest tactic often seen with the left: they pretend to be Republicans or disenfranchised former Republicans so as to give themselves a level of credibility to which they are not due. No self-respecting Republican would vote for any of the Marxists masquerading as moderate Democrats, even if he hated Bush and other Republicans so badly that he's counting down the days until January 20, 2009.

"Libertarians and the war"

2007-07-19T08:57:00.000-04:00

Excellent column by Randy Barnett in Opinion Journal. Please read the whole thing, an excerpt of which is here:

While the number of Americans who self-identify as "libertarian" remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres--what is sometimes called "economic conservatism" and "social liberalism." But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Mr. Giuliani's retort--that this was the first time he had heard that "we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"--sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

The exchange also drew attention to Mr. Paul, who until then had been a rather marginal member of the 10-man Republican field. One striking feature of Mr. Paul's debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him--even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty--to the war.

This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is "no."

First and foremost, libertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true "liberty" and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others.
...
But here is the rub. While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly.
...

Please, read it. It's great stuff!

Silky Pony botches analogy about poverty

2007-07-19T08:46:00.000-04:00

The Breck Girl, he of the $1200 'do and energy hog multi-million dollar mansion, tries again to relate to the "common man" in the "other America" in which he doesn't live. From BTN:

Silky Tells Matthews That Being Poor Is Not Being able To Eat At Restaurants
07.17.2007 - 04:03 PM | Greg Hengler

Chris Matthews really strokes the Silky Pony's mane here. First, Silky is invited by Matthews to debate on Hardball against other Dems but his Silkiness says that he will agree to only if ALL candidates will be invited. This coming after the secret conversation caught on live mic between the Silkster and Hillary. How fair of him. Next, Silks answers Matthews' question: "Tell the people what it's like to be poor?" Silky tells the cliff notes version of his often-told story of leaving a restaurant as a young lad after his father saw how he could not afford to eat there. That's poor! Not eating out. Wow, if Silky keeps on his "Poverty Tour" everyone will be able to eat at Spago's.

This guy is a virtual cornucopia of material for the blogosphere, isn't he?

Terrorism involved? Nah, couldn't be!

2007-07-19T08:26:00.000-04:00

From Ace:

Large Cache of Weapons Discovered In Dallas Apartment Near Federal Building; Fundamentalist Christian Sought For Questioning
—Ace
Well, I assume he's a fundamentalist Christian. They keep telling me those are the sorts of violent zealots who stock up on Armageddon levels of firepower.

Given that the tenant keeps traveling back and forth to the Middle East, I can only assume he's part of some sort of Biblical/Left Behind Christotourism travel package.

Anyway:
Federal sources tell CBS 11 News that law enforcement officers have confiscated a large cache of weapons found in an apartment near the federal building in downtown Dallas.
...
Police are still taking inventory of all the weapons seized. Among those discovered were two AK-47 rifles, an Uzi 9 millimeter submachine gun, a TEC-9 submachine gun, a 40 millimeter ordnance launcher, a handheld ordnance launcher, and about 500 rounds of ammunition.

Police seized the weapons even though they say it's possible for all of them to be legal.

Child pornography was also found in the apartment, which could lead to criminal charges.
..
Authorities tell us the tenant travels to the Middle East frequently and just returned from there this morning.
...
However, authorities say there is no reason to suspect terrorism as a motive.

Nah, no reason at all.

Just because a pedophile likes to stock up on machine guns and ordnance launchers doesn't mean he's all about terrorism, now does it, you judgmental b#stards? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

$1 mill for mystery project

2007-07-19T08:10:00.000-04:00

Anyone tired yet of the "culture of corruption" hypocrisy? Me too. From Politico:

What's a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?

Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.

After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"

"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."

As if that wasn't bad enough...

And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.

Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.

As I said, what's one million dollars to a member of Congress?

UPDATE: I failed to report last night that a certificate filed with the requested funds says the money is actually earmarked to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, a nonprofit technological consulting firm. A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha's reelection campaign since April 2002.

Abscam Jack, still crazy after all these years. Quite a deal for Abscam Jack and DeVos, wouldn't you say? DeVos gives Jack $7k for his re-election campaign, and gets a nice cool million (not a dime of which is out of Abscam Jack's pocket) as a return on his investment. I guess it's a good thing we've got those principled, uncorrupted Dems running the show now, huh?

"Bridge to Nowhere" dude typifies DC thinking: Tax money is HIS money!

2007-07-18T21:33:00.001-04:00

From Politico:

Rep. Don Young attacked his fellow Republicans on the House floor Wednesday, as he defended education funds allocated to his home-state of Alaska.

"You want my money, my money," Young stridently declared before warning conservatives that, "Those who bite me will be bitten back."

Young took extreme exception to an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) to strike money in a spending bill for native Alaskan and Hawaiian educational programs.
...
And lest we forget, Young, who used to chair the House Transportation Committee, is responsible for the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," a proposed span connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, with the tiny island of Gravina that would have cost $315 million – and eventually came to symbolize profligate spending under Republican rule.

Oh, and he has spent more than $250,000 on legal fees so far this year at the same time that federal investigators probe some of his campaign's biggest contributors.

Garrett refrained from asking for an official reprimand, but he and other conservative Republicans took after Young's declaration that the funds in question represented his money. The assembled conservatives then launched into a general attack on earmarked spending.

"We legally steal," argued Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), defending her colleague from New Jersey. (Finally, some refreshing honesty from DC! - Ed.)

Members of the conservative Republican Study Committee gave Garrett a standing ovation later in the day during the group's weekly meeting, an aide to one conservative member said.

Get it through your head, dipsh#t: my money from Florida sure as hell does NOT belong to you in Alaska! Tax money is the people's money, you corrupt self-serving piece of caribou crap, and don't you ever freakin' forget it!

Obama: Teach sex ed in kindergarten

2007-07-18T21:21:00.001-04:00

The depravity that these morons possess is staggering. When they're not writing about fellating Cambodian boys, these pervs are trying to get sex ed in kindergarten. From ABC:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."

"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."

"Age-appropriate" for five-year-olds, huh? I can see it now: "Little Johnny has a corndog, and he wants to put it in Little Suzy's lunchbox. Here, let's demonstrate!" Of course, the San Franistan edition would feature Little Adam and Little Nigel trying to roast weenies during a camping retreat, but I digress.

Arafat died of AIDS

2007-07-17T12:48:00.000-04:00

Karma...it's not just for breakfast anymore. God forgive me, but this made me laugh harder than Bill Clinton does whenever taking an oath (marital oath, oath of office, oath to tell the truth in court, etc.). From Moonbattery:

It's official: terrorist Nobel Peace Prize–winner Yasser Arafat died of AIDS. As Mark Steyn notes, this wasn't a big surprise to everyone:
[Arafat having died of AIDS was] pretty much an open secret in diplomatic circles. I'm in Madrid at the moment, and it prompted many knowing chortles among political types I mentioned it to today, along with fond reminiscences about Yasser's corps of hunky blond Scandinavian bodyguards — an odd bunch of chaps to find in Ramallah, but presumably they were doing the jobs Palestinians won't do. (Although I bet the Nobel prize committee would do it! - Ed.)

James Lewis observes that the Western media must have known all about it, but kept it quiet for fear of damaging the postmortem reputation of their favorite terrorist. He accuses Arafat of being a Typhoid Mary of AIDS, knowingly spreading the deadly disease as he indulged his homosexual lusts. This would hardly be out of character for a malignant narcissist like Arafat, who has made it obvious that other humans exist only for his own pleasure and enrichment; their suffering means nothing. Look what he did to Israelis with his terror wars, and to Palestinians by deliberately holding them in poverty, resolutely scuttling any chance of peace and squirreling away Western aid in his own Swiss bank accounts.

This is the kind of guy who gets awarded the Nobel Peace Prize nowadays, thanks to moonbattery.

What do the bloodthirsty camelhumping jihadists who idolzed him think of such un-Islamic (and punishable by death) behavior? Prediction: "It's a Zionist lie! Let's riot and blow stuff up! Le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le!"

Dems finally ready to cut government office

2007-07-17T08:50:00.000-04:00

No, not defense spending. From Opinion Journal:

The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget It wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight.
...
OLMS, the Labor office that watches over union disclosure forms, says that last year 93% of unions met its reporting requirements. But the other 7% deserve scrutiny. Union members deserve to know how their dues are spent. They might want to know that in 2005, the National Education Association gave more than $65 million to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and dozens of other liberal advocacy groups that have nothing to do with the interests of teachers. In 2006, 49 individuals employed at the national AFL-CIO headquarters were paid more than $130,000. "Union members are also discovering the extent to which their dues money is funding lavish trips for union officials to luxury resorts and other expensive perks unrelated to collective bargaining," says Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.
...
Investigations conducted by OLMS also have led to an impressive list of successful prosecutions of union officials. Just last week Willie Haynes, a member of the Saginaw, Mich., City Council who also served as a United Auto Workers financial secretary, pleaded guilty to falsifying his union local's reports. In May, Chuck Crawley, a former Teamster's local president in Houston, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for stuffing a ballot box so he could be elected president of his union local and embezzling dues money.
...Union officials have publicly stated that they believe many of OLMS's requirements are burdensome and unnecessary. Since unions helped elect the current Congress, they are now seeking action on their agenda, which ranges from holding fewer secret ballot elections to cutting back on the oversight that is at the heart of the 1959 union "bill of rights" that JFK championed.

Once again, the Dems have their dirty little hands in the "culture of corruption" cookie jar.

Muslim Congressman Godwins himself

2007-07-17T08:05:00.000-04:00

From FNC:

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told the group, according to The Minneapolis Star Tribune. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

So he's a Truther, right? You know, one of those paranoid asshats who think that Bush destroyed the Twin Towers (and part of the Pentagon and made a crater in PA)? Sounds like it...until he gets all John Kerry on us:

During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the 350-member Atheists for Human Rights: "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you."

Oops...too late. Consider yourself dismissed, nut-ball.

Romney trying to be like Silky Pony?

2007-07-17T07:56:00.000-04:00

If anything, I'm consistent! From Politico:

What kinds of things do you think of when you hear "communications consulting"?

Speechwriting? Message strategy?

Well, "communications consulting" is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services."

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments -- actually two separate $150 charges -- were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif. That was before the May 3 Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., co-sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico.

"We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time," said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as "communications consulting" because it was paid from the communications division's budget.

If I'm gonna whack Johnboy Edwards for being a lavishly spending primperdonna, then I'm gonna poke fun at the Mittster, too. Seriously, "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services"?

News bytes

2007-07-16T09:05:00.000-04:00

I'm swamped today, so here are a few reading assignments for your discussing pleasures (not "disgusting pleasures"...who do you think comments here, Barney Frank? LOL!):

Senators Lindsey Grahamnesty and Jim "Cambodian boy fellated" Webb dueled it out on "Meet the Press" regarding Iraq. Webb's hypocrisy went unnoticed and unchallenged when he said the following to Graham: "This is one thing I really take objection to—may I speak?—is politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers." (1) Right, because you've never done that before, right, Webb? (2) At least Webb was talking about putting words in mouths instead of something else, right?

Headline: "State Department tells American citizens told to leave Gaza, West Bank, exercise caution". Well heck, there goes that tropical retreat sabbatical I was planning for me and the rugrats to the balmy beaches of the West Bank! I guess Bermuda will have to do.

Awesome satire from the Onion, called "John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011". Excerpt: "In an effort to jump-start a presidential campaign that still has not broken into the top Democratic tier, former Sen. John Edwards made his most ambitious policy announcement yet at a campaign event in Iowa Monday: a promise to eliminate all unpleasant, disagreeable, or otherwise bad things from all aspects of American life by the end of his second year in office."

Another liberal fishwrap contributor's condescending view of the military: "Some have argued that without a draft, enlisting in this war is a matter of choice, so what happens, happens. But that's not necessarily true in the case of National Guard troops who have been called up. And as for soldiers as young as my nephew, I don't see enlistment as a well-informed choice but as a product of manipulation." In other words, his nephew is an idiot? Thanks, Uncle Steve.

Rasmussen shows that Americans see liberal bias on TV news. You don't say!

British schools remove Churchill from history, add global "warming"

2007-07-15T12:39:00.000-04:00

The wussification of the UK continues. From the Sun via Michelle Malkin:

FURY erupted last night after Sir Winston Churchill was axed from school history lessons.

Britain’s cigar-chomping World War Two PM — famed for his two-finger victory salute — was removed from a list of figures secondary school children must learn about.

Instead they will be taught about “relevant” issues such as global warming and drug dangers. Churchill’s grandson, Tory MP Nicholas Soames, branded the move “total madness.”

The decision to axe Churchill is part of a major shake-up aimed at dragging the national curriculum into the 21st century, it was claimed last night.

But the plan — hatched by advisers — angered schools secretary Ed Balls, who vowed to probe ALL the changes to the curriculum.

The proposals will see traditional timetables torn up, with pupils focusing on modern “relevant” topics such as drug and booze abuse, climate change and GM foods.

Churchill — voted the greatest ever Briton — goes off the required lessons list, along with Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin and Martin Luther King.

There will also be no need to mention the Wars of the Roses, Elizabeth I or Henry VIII.

Looks like the NEA here in America has gotten a hold of schools abroad, as well.

Bill Richardson's "playful" gay slur

2007-07-13T14:56:00.000-04:00

From the Seattlestan fishwrap:

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said Thursday his use of a Spanish word that some contend is a slur against homosexuals was meant to be playful but apologized to anyone who was offended.
With critics revisiting the statement he made on a radio program a year ago, Richardson questioned the timing of their comments.

"My record is the strongest among the presidential candidates on gay rights issues and I'm puzzled by the timing of this. When it happened a year ago, nobody seemed to think it was terribly important. Now it surfaces," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

"It's probably a sign from other campaigns that they are little worried about me," he said.

Yeah, those impressive polling numbers (3%) have Shrillary, Osamabama, and Silky Pony quaking. Continuing:

Richardson, a Hispanic and the governor of New Mexico, was a guest on Don Imus' syndicated radio program on March 29, 2006. Imus, who later lost his job over making racial comments, jokingly said one of his staffers suggested Richardson was "not really Hispanic."

Richardson replied in Spanish that if the staffer believes that, then he is a "maricon."

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says the word means "faggot" in Spanish.

In a statement this week, Richardson said that in the Spanish he grew up speaking, "the term means simply 'gay,' not positive or negative."

He told the AP on Thursday: "It was a playful exchange between me and Don Imus that was not intended to demean anybody, but if I offended anybody, I apologize."

A few observations, if I may:

1. The lesson here is clear: if you're going to slur someone from a P.C. "protected" group, just do it in Spanish. ¡Muchos gracias!

2. "Macaca" moment? Oops...wrong party. The MSM's got little to say about it beyond this. But that's different, right?

3. Richardson was "playfully" saying "faggot", which I was unaware could be done. This will no doubt come as a huge surprise to Ann Coulter.

4. Someone doubts Richardson's Latino "street cred", and Richardson calls that person a queer...but he didn't mean it in a "positive or negative" way. Right.

5. The left says that gays are fine and dandy, then they smear anyone they think or imply might be gay. Geez, pick a talking point and stick to it, will ya?

Scooter's sentence commuted because he's not black? Plus, more from Silky Pone-Pone

2007-07-13T11:18:00.000-04:00

So sayeth (or implyeth) the LA Time's "Magic Negro"! From NewsMax:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Thursday derided President Bush's commutation of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term even as black men routinely serve time behind bars.

All eight Democratic hopefuls and a lone Republican candidate, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, addressed the NAACP convention. The Democrats focused their criticism on the administration's record on race relations and poverty.

"We know we have more work to do when Scooter Libby gets no prison time and a 21-year-old honor student, who hadn't even committed a felony, gets 10 years in prison," Obama said to loud cheers.

Aides said Obama was referring to Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia man serving a 10-year prison sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. A judge last month ordered Wilson to be freed, but prosecutors are blocking the order.

While I agree with Obama's take on the Genarlow Wilson incident (it's a crying shame what miscarriage of justice occurred there), I find it repulsive that he has to resort to race-baiting by comparing an unrelated case to Libby. Had Genarlow Wilson been white, would Obama have made that comment or analogy? Of course not, for it would not have had the same racial hysteria overtones.

By the way, Silky Pony must have another about face like he did with Iraq:

Edwards' call for felons' voting rights to be restored also received loud cheers, although as a North Carolina senator in 2002 he voted against a bill allowing felons the right to vote in federal elections.

Well, he was Waffles' running mate, so he must have learned from the best.

NJ state senator wants to ban toy guns

2007-07-13T09:21:00.000-04:00

I don't have to tell you which party this moonbat legislator comes from, do I? From Joisey:

A New Jersey senator wants to make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under age 18 toy guns that look so realistic they can be mistaken for a real firearm.

"The margin between a child's stupid mistake and a tragic ending is far too thin," said Sen. Nicholas Scutari.

Scutari, D-Union, introduced the proposal in late June and plans to push it when the Legislature reconvenes late this year. He said the bill stems from an incident in a Union Township where four students were suspended after bringing a cap gun to school.

"We need to stress to our children that guns are not toys, but deadly weapons which should always be regarded with extreme caution and handled with respect," Scutari said. "Restricting access to imitation firearms will help to drive that point home."

Actually, moron, guns are not toys, but TOY guns are TOYS! Continuing:

Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison.

Little Johnny buys a water pistol with his allowance and winds up in the hoosegow. Brilliant.

New Jersey must have officially run out of all other problems with which to deal, if they're now turning to banning toy guns.

"Fat tax" could "save lives"?

2007-07-13T09:00:00.000-04:00

Those crazy Euros are at it again. From al-Reuters:

A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.

The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.

The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

"A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease," the study concluded.

The team from Oxford's Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living.

...and those taxes have been failures at that for which they were intended. We have cig and booze taxes here, too, with similar results: millions of people still smoke and drink. All these silly "sin taxes" do is line the pockets of Big Guvmint. Besides, if that 20 oz. cold one at AJ's Sports Bar costs $3.00, would you order fewer if the suggested 17.5% tax were added, bringing the total to $3.53? Me neither.

Aside from the obvious "Nanny State" argument, there's another argument to be made here. Whenever government gets it mitts on our money through taxes on cigarettes or alcohol, they almost always say that they will use the tax money on health insurance government programs, usually for kids. Well, what if the purported desired effect is achieved, i.e. more people finally quit smoking or drinking? That would, by default, mean less money would be available to fund these new health insurance programs! Gasp! Why, how could you former smokers and former drinkers be so selfish as to deprive children of their health care? Do your patriotic duty, by ~~God~~ (insert deity of preference here) and get out there and destroy your own health so you can fund the programs that preserve the health of others!

I work out and eat healthy foods because I choose to do so. If you don't live similarly, then who in the Sam Hill would I be to demand that you do? I would be Big Guvmint, that's who.

Quote of the day

2007-07-12T22:55:00.000-04:00

This is juicy in several different yummy flavors! Get this, from Newsbusters:

Thursday’s edition of "Good Morning America" featured a Diane Sawyer anecdote that revealed the low opinion Americans have of journalists. After wrapping up a segment on people who avoid jury duty, the ABC co-host recounted the "hurtful" experience she had in a courtroom:
[Link to video]
[Wrap up of segment on getting out of jury duty.]

Diane Sawyer: "You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, 'Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?' And I said, 'That's what journalists do.' And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I've ever had."

I don't know what's funnier: the jury's laughter (and laugh they should), or that Dim Diane was clueless and naive enough to think that normal Americans hold her and her MSM brethren in such high esteem.

This blog is rated...

2007-07-12T11:01:00.000-04:00

Apprently, "This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words":

gun (10x)
murder (5x)
bomb (3x)
steal (2x)
death (1x)

That's outrageous! I mean, I could have sworn I've used those words a helluva lot more times than that!

The rating isn't based on racy photos, on threats, or on foul language (since I avoid the former and try to keep the latter to a minimum). Interestingly, according to this same "rating" site, my blog is more risqué and less tame than the Kos kooks' site (they got a PG-13) and the DUmb#ss Underground site (rated G??)! You ever see the level of profanity, veiled threats, and vitriol there? Yikes.

Hat tip to RV for alerting me to this.

We should embrace the Fairness Doctrine?

2007-07-12T10:32:00.001-04:00

Many of the points below have been made here by me and commenters, but this is a good way to tie all the points together. From Bruce Chapman:

Liberals are hailing a report that calls for federal regulations to end the "structural imbalance in political talk radio." Two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Free Press, complain that more than 90 percent of the programs on talk radio feature conservative hosts and themes while only 10 percent are "progressive."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has promised to examine the report's recommendations for possible legislation and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says flatly, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."

That really is a good, old-fashioned attitude, all right. But under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as "the public affairs ghetto." Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses.

But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is "imbalanced" and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.

At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation's 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.

But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new "Fairness Doctrine," perhaps conservatives should embrace it -- providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some "progressives" throwing down their papers in disgust?)

Let's start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don't make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.

Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let's see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative -- not the most egregious and unpopular -- to reply to the liberal voice.

In addition to cable broadcasting, the new Fairness Doctrine also should reach into the press. I know print media have always been exempt, but, hey, judicial precedents change. Newspapers and news magazines not only use the public mails to ship some of their goods (often at subsidized rates), but they also run their delivery trucks over public roads and park their corner coin-boxes on public sidewalks. The current philosophy of government seems to be, if it moves, the government has a say in it, so why should newspapers get away with sitting in aloof Olympian judgment on everyone else?

It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let's just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.

It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural "fairness" still further -- to Hollywood.

Or maybe the left would be smart to drop the matter altogether.

"Smart" and "left" should rarely go in the same sentence, Bruce.

Irony alert: Johnny Mac violates campaign finance law?

2007-07-12T08:13:00.000-04:00

You reap what you sow, Senator McCain. From the Old Gray Hag:

About 3 p.m. Tuesday, Senator John McCain ducked off the Senate floor, entered the Republican cloakroom and took out his mobile phone. Just hours after accepting the resignation of his two top campaign aides, he was making a conference call to his top fund-raisers to urge them to keep up the fight.

The call, however, may only have exacerbated an already tough week for Mr. McCain. Senate ethics rules expressly forbid lawmakers to engage in campaign activities inside Senate facilities. If Mr. McCain solicited campaign contributions on a call from government property, that would be a violation of federal criminal law as well.

There is no evidence that Mr. McCain has made a habit of making such calls or otherwise exploiting his office for political gain, and he is hardly the first lawmaker to call a donor from under the Capitol dome. But he made the call as he was in the spotlight because of the staff shake-up, sagging poll numbers and disappointing fund-raising of his Republican presidential primary campaign.

It was the kind of technical mistake that seasoned aides — like the ones his campaign is now letting go — are supposed to prevent.

Mr. McCain was well aware of the rules. Ten years ago he led Republican calls for an independent prosecutor to investigate accusations of violations of the same rules by Vice President Al Gore. Mr. McCain went on to make the episode a cornerstone of both his 2000 Republican primary campaign and his argument for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
...
Back then, the need for campaign finance reform was one of Mr. McCain’s favorite themes, and he often mocked Mr. Gore’s argument that there was “no controlling legal authority” forbidding his fund-raising calls from another federal property, the White House.

“The American people deserve a controlling ethical authority,” Mr. McCain used to repeat on the campaign trail, “as well as controlling legal authority.”

Johnny Mac and his boy Russ stepped all over the First Amendment, with an assist from Jorgé W. Bush and the Supremes, with that awful Campaign Finance Reform Act. How fitting that he is now running afoul of it.

"Al Gore And NBC: Birds Of A Feather"

2007-07-12T07:25:00.000-04:00

Abso-freakin'-lutely awesome piece from Investors Business Daily (via CNN):

Politics: Was what Al Gore called "the largest global entertainment event in all of human history" also the largest in-kind political contribution? And where's the Fairness Doctrine when you need it?

Considering that here in the U.S. the Peacock Network's three-hour Gore infomercial on global warming lost out in the ratings to "Cops" and "America's Funniest Home Videos," Gore's claim may be open to question. Live Earth, in fact, may have been America's funniest home video. Ever. (Ouch! - Ed.)

But thanks in large part to the 75 hours of free airtime that NBC gave Gore on its various stations, starting with NBC and including CNBC, Bravo, the Sundance channel, Universal HD and Telemundo, Gore may now be the 800-pound gorilla this political season.

Gore insists he's not running for president. Yet, as we have wondered before, why would a man who insists that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind, bigger than nuclear terror, not want control of the reins of a major world polluter and chief resister to Kyoto?

Dan Harrison, an NBC corporate senior vice president, called the Gore effort "an initiative we believe in" -- the "we" presumably including corporate parent General Electric. (NYSE:GE) Yet he insisted: "I don't think climate change is a political issue."

From the other side of his mouth, Harrison opined: "If it's a political issue, it's whether the political will exists to address that change. We know we need to do something, and this is a way to heighten awareness."

So he considers it NBC's mission to generate that political will in an election cycle in support of a man who once ran for president.

NBC and GE have other interests in hyping climate change. Let's not forget GE is the parent of NBC and stands to make a wad of cash from selling alternative energy products from wind turbines to solar panels to those compact fluorescent bulbs containing mercury.

So when Gore prances on stage to demand we stop building coal-fired plants, that's music to GE's corporate ears.

NBC's Ann Curry certainly thinks global warming is a political issue. During prime-time coverage, she almost got down on her knees to beg the jolly green giant to run for the White House.

Interviewing Gore from the site of the concert in New Jersey, Curry gushed:

"A lot of people want me to ask you tonight if you're running for president. And I know what you're answer is gonna be, believe me. I gotta ask you though. After fueling this grass-roots movement, if you become convinced that without you there will not be the political will in the White House to fight global warming to the level that is required, because the clock is ticking, would you answer the call? Would you answer the call, yes or no?"

Certainly Gore thinks global warming is a political issue, appearing earlier this year before Democrat-controlled House and Senate committees pleading for action. During his opening statement before the House, he famously said: "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."

After Gore's testimony, a better course of action would have been to ask for a second opinion.

When a conservative appears on talk radio, liberals cry for the Fairness Doctrine. Seventy-five free hours for Archbishop Gore's Church of Climate Change? Not a peep.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Al Qaeda at pre-9/11 strength?

2007-07-12T07:15:00.000-04:00

From Breitbart:

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

The conclusion suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Two observations:

1. If this report is true, then this is horrible news for America (which means it's good news for Democrats).

2. This story is based on an anonymous source leaking classified material pertaining to national security, which is a crime. Therefore, I am just sure this will attract the same level of outrage, if not higher, among the left that they had when a non-covert pencil pushing desk jockey's name was given to Richard Armitage, right? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Dr. Williams' question to criminal alien apologists (particularly libertarians)

2007-07-11T11:59:00.001-04:00

A very simple, basic, straightforward question posed by Dr. Walter Williams to people, especially libertarian friends (current and former):

President Bush and his pro-amnesty allies both in and out of Congress suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the American people. Like any other public controversy, there are vested interests served on both sides of the amnesty issue, but I'd like to raise some ordinary non-rocket-science questions to the pro-amnesty crowd, many of whom are my libertarian friends.

Do people, anywhere in the world, have a right to enter the United States irrespective of our laws pertaining to immigration? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, there's a simple "yes" or "no" answer to that question. If a "yes" answer is given, then why should there be any immigration requirements, such as visas, passports and green cards, for anyone who wishes to visit or reside in our country? Why not abolish the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services?

If your answer is "no," one does not have a right to enter the U.S. irrespective of our laws, what does that make a person who does so? Most often we call a person whose behavior violates a law a criminal. If people commit criminal acts, should there be an effort to apprehend and punish them? In general, my answer is yes, with one important exception.

I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty. While our immigration laws are overly cumbersome and in urgent need of streamlining, they do not violate human rights and should be obeyed.

Many pro-amnesty supporters offer the canard that there are 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in our country. We cannot keep every illegal immigrant out or expel the ones living here. That might be true, but it is also true that we can't prevent every rape and murder. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to enforce the laws against rape and murder and try to prosecute the perpetrators?

In addition to greater efforts to secure our borders, there are several non-rocket-science steps we can take. People who are here illegally should be denied access to any social service such as Medicaid, public education and food assistance programs. An exception might be made for temporary emergency medical treatment. In some cities, such as Los Angeles, police are prohibited from asking people they stop about their immigration status. While state and local police shouldn't be turned into federal agents, they shouldn't knowingly conceal criminal acts.

The United States is a nation of immigrants from all over the world. The resulting ethnic mosaic goes a long way toward explaining our greatness as a nation. Immigration has always been a blessing for us, and it still is. But yesteryear's immigration and today's differ in several important respects. For the most part, yesteryear's immigrants came here legally. Because there was no welfare state, we were guaranteed that they'd work as opposed to living off the rest of us. Furthermore, they sought to assimilate and adopt our culture and become Americans. That's not so true today, where Hispanic activists seek to impose their language and culture on the rest of us. At some public schools, they've raised the Mexico flag atop the U.S. flag. They've announced that they seek to take back parts of the U.S. that were formerly Mexico.

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question: Do people have the right to come into America in violation of our immigration laws? The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans say "No"!

Moonbat anti-war nut shoots airman, kills self

2007-07-11T08:21:00.000-04:00

Ace reports that the MSM is quieter than Michael Moore at a Sanjay Gupta family reunion when it comes to the anti-war motive of this shooter:

Attempted murder is the highest form of patriotism.

Want to know the kicker? The MSM is covering up the anti-war lunatic's motive, refusing to inform the public why he shot the airman.
this 22 year old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said “not any more” and shot him point blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself. Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier.

The most the MSM will say is that he was "angry at the government." Angry in what way? They're not telling. They know, but they've decided the public doesn't need to know such trifling details.

The American Thinker on the media's code of leftist omerta:
If Airman Schrieken had been an abortionist or homosexual, this story would be front page news for the New York Times and the lead story on CBS News with Katie Couric for at least the next month. But since Schrieken is serving in the military, even his hometown newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, has ignored this story.
Predictably, a law enforcement spokesman says that Marren’s suicide notes “were indicative of an individual suffering from mental-health problems”, but that raises the question of how anyone could identify anyone suffering from mental-health problems amidst those devoted to bizarre conspiracy theories and the virulent anti-Americanism of the antiwar movement. If anything, Marren would have fit right in unnoticed.

It is also worth noting that Marren was merely following the logic of the anti-war movement’s standard public rhetoric. Their language is laced with suggestive undertones justifying attacks against our military, calling our armed forces fighting the War on Terror “baby-killers”, constantly invoking the specter of Abu Ghraib, and citing their grossly inflated statistics of civilians accidentally killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such reckless and unbalanced rhetoric (they’re not quite as adept at keeping statistics on those murdered by terrorists) fuels the hatred that drives someone like Marren to violence against a member of our own military.

...
Racist "Code Words:" The media is ever eager to read the supposed "subtext" of "racist code words" such as "welfare queens" and the like.

Funny that they completely miss not-at-all-subtextual messages like this:

... and apparently don't ever worry that such hate speech might actually impel some of the less reality-based members of the Reality-Based Community to commit acts of violence.

If a Republican opposes amnesty, he's sending messages that it's okay to beat and kill illegal immigrants. When the left openly calls for murder, the MSM just doesn't seem capable of reading not the subtext but the actual text of their messages. ...

Just so you know: Talk radio (aka "hate radio", to the left) is directly responsible for wingnuts like the Unabomber and Timothy Macveigh, but the anti-war rhetoric of moonbats is in NO WAY responsible for acts of violence like this. Got it?

Yet another "jobs Americans won't do" post

2007-07-11T08:00:00.000-04:00

That job being "executing 13-year-old girls". From Freedom Folks:

From the Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn...
Prosecutors allege that Mwenda Murithi was a leader in the Imperial Gangsters and on the evening of June 25 he gave the order to shoot at a rival gang, killing 13-year-old Schanna Gayden, an innocent bystander.

Murithi, 26, was charged with first-degree murder along with the alleged gunman, Tony Serrano, 19.

The question at trial will be whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Murithi is guilty of that charge.

The question I have, though, is why Murithi was in the country at all that night.

Murithi entered the country legally on a student visa, but the visa was officially terminated by ICE on February 12, 2003, when Murithi dropped out of classes at the University of Wisconsin.

And what has this POS gangbanger been up to since then?

Source: ABC7 Chicago
Murithi has a long criminal history, including 28 arrests in the last four years, four of them felonies.

That’s what you get, folks, with the unholy matrimony of a sanctuary city and a country that refuses to enforce its borders and immigration laws in any meaningful way. An innocent 13-year-old was gunned down by an illegal alien with 28 arrests in 4 years, and law enforcement at every level is scrambling to deny culpability. Or, as Zorn reports...
Not us! said the Chicago Police Department. “We don’t ever ask about immigration status,” said spokeswoman Monique Bond. “We leave that up to the courts.”

Not us! said the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. “We don’t check,” said spokesman John Gorman. “That’s for [ICE] to do. We’re not involved.”

Not us! said ICE.

How many American citizens have to die, Mayor Daley, before we get rid of our city’s ridiculous sanctuary policy? How many American citizens have to die, States Attorney Devine, before you quit passing the buck? How many American citizens have to die, Mr. President, before you stop holding border security and immigration law enforcement hostage for an amnesty that Americans don’t want?

But don’t bother telling ME the number. Tell it to Schanna Gayden’s mother. Tell it to Dustin Inman’s family. Tell it to David March’s family. Tell it to Wayne and Michelle Hughes’ family. Tell it to Alex Tsuji’s family. Tell it to Joycelyn Gardiner’s family. Tell it to Kent Boone’s family. Tell it to Bob Clark’s family. Tell it to Allison Kunhardt and Tessa Tranchant’s families. Tell it to Maria and Vanessa Ortiz’s family.

I could go on and on and on. And we have our government to thank for it.

It's not just our government we have to thank for it. We can also thank all of the criminal alien apologists who call people like US "quacking" bigots for wanting scum like Murithi deported post haste. As far as I'm concerned, these apologists are almost as much to blame, since they have been fighting every effort to get these b#stards out of our country.

GOP Senator on DC Madam's list

2007-07-11T07:42:00.000-04:00

From Breitbart:

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, whose telephone number was disclosed by the so-called "D.C. Madam" accused of running a prostitution ring, says he is sorry for a "serious sin" and that he has already made peace with his wife.
"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said Monday in a printed statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there—with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

The Republican senator's spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement Monday evening in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

It said his telephone number was on old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates before he ran for the Senate.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey is accused by federal prosecutors of racketeering by running a prostitution ring that netted more than $2 million over 13 years, beginning in 1993. She contends that her escort service, Pamela Martin and Associates, was a legitimate business.

Vitter's infidelity coincides with the 3,425th troop death in Iraq.

OK, I threw in that last sentence, only because I knew the MSM would try to find a way to tie this story, as every story, with Iraq. It's a joke, people...lighten up!

Forgiveness is called for here, to be sure. But let's call this thing the way it really is: If you're going to run a campaign and a term on "family values", it's safe to say that hooking up with a prostitute kinda sorta runs against that whole "family values" thingy, right?

Anywho, get a load of this from that bumbling idiot of a governor in Vitter's home state:

Louisiana's Democratic governor, Kathleen Blanco, issued a statement saying she was "disappointed" over the revelation and hoped it wouldn't hurt the state's efforts to secure federal funding for rebuilding homes damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

"I will travel to Washington in the coming weeks to continue my conversations with congressional leaders, and I hope this scandal will not lessen their critical support of our recovery," Blanco said.

"I'm sorry, Governor Blanco, but the money we were going to send your way to assist with hurricane-related rebuilding is on hold because your Senator couldn't keep his willy away from hookers. Sorry 'bout that!" Dumb#ss.

Naturally, the MSM loves this, not only because of the hypocrisy and because he's a Republican. No, they love it even more because the current GOP presidential frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, uses Vitter as his campaign chair for the South, and the MSM is hoping that this could harm Giuliani. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but the MSM will do their level best to try.

Anywho, back to Vitter. I have to wonder: since the House seat Vitter held was the same House seat held by Newt Gingrich's successor Bob Livingston, and since Livingston was also a "family values" Republican who strayed from the marital plantation, is there something in that district's water system that attacks the portion of the brain responsible for sex drive in GOP politicians that makes these dudes unable to control themselves? Or is it that they're just hypocrites?

Oh, well, Vitter should look on the bright side: at least he doesn't live in Iran.

"Non-political" meets "headline"

2007-07-10T12:03:00.001-04:00

Headline: "Women drawn to men with muscles". What ever would we do without "experts"?

By the way, the bolded section is somewhat buried in the article:

Muscular young men are likely to have more sex partners than their less-chiseled peers, researchers at the University of California Los Angeles said on Monday.
...
"Women are predisposed to prefer muscularity in men," said study author David Frederick of UCLA.
...
Women were more physically attracted to brawny men, especially for a fling. But when it comes to finding a long-term partner, they tend to pick a regular man over a mate with huge biceps.

"On the one hand, it makes them more sexy to women. On the other hand, it makes women more suspicious about their romantic intentions," Frederick said.

So guys, if you're justing looking for a little sump'n-sump'n on the fornication front, then pump some iron. If you're looking for something a bit more stable, then step away from the barbell. What's a dude to do??

Strategy to Dems: Appeal to emotions, not facts or reason

2007-07-10T10:51:00.001-04:00

I know we discussed this before, but I can't seem to find it anywhere in my posts. Anywho, from Neal Boortz:

I really think that this is one of the big stories of the day. Maybe because it is something I've been saying for years ... about liberals, that is.

It looks like we have a high-powered brain scientist serving as the latest advisor to the Democratic party. Drew Westen conducted research which leads to his conclusion that politicians – liberal politicians -- should try and appeal to people's emotions, rather than bogging them down with data and facts.

Where did we first find out about this research? Why, at the ultra-left wing "Take Back America" convention, that's where. The study was presented by researcher, Drew Westen, a psychologist and brain researcher at Emory University in my hometown of Atlanta.

Here's the ironic part of his study. It sounds to me like Dr. Westen is basically telling democrats that their constituents are stupid. He is telling democrats to appeal to constituents' emotions because "it doesn't make sense to argue an issue using facts and figures ... or to count on voters to make choices based on sophisticated understandings of policy differences or procedures." And there you have it. Avoid the facts, just go right for the heart!

Dr. Westen is suggesting that manipulating a voter's emotions is better than boring them to tears with sophisticated understandings. "Sophisticated understandings? What's that? Sounds to me like just a phrase denoting basic worldly knowledge, or being an educated citizen. Mr. Westen says, "[The brain] prefers conclusions that are emotionally satisfying rather than conclusions that match the data."

Message to Democrats. Don't bore your constituents with facts. Just tell them whatever makes them comfortable, warm, happy and all fuzzy.

Hmmmmm .... Not boring constituents with facts. Does that sound at all like the global warming cultists? But, I digress ......

So what's a good politician to do? How about just scrapping all of the data and research on global warming, socialized healthcare, voting rights, government education ... what's the point? If I want to be a good liberal, I should just get up here and appeal to your emotions. Forget trying to actually understand an issue ... that would just be too complicated.

You know why this works for democrats, don't you? Because if their voters actually did the research into any liberal platform issues, they would realize that the Democrats are wrong. I've been telling you for years that liberals (that means Democrats) like to argue from the position of emotion and feelings rather than fact and logic. You'll find it in my book "The Terrible Truth About Liberals," and that's more than 10 years old! So let's all just sit back and listen while the "progressives" offer us their preachy little sound bites that play on your emotions and not your intellect.

The sad reality here is that Dr. Westen probably has this thing figured out pretty well.

I have always said that liberalism is a "feeling, not thinking" ideology, and now we have a psychologist confirming this.

Click to enlarge (picture, not brain...the liberal brain cannot be enlarged)

Bad news for teachers unions

2007-07-10T10:12:00.000-04:00

That means good news for parents of school-aged children. The Supreme Court recognizes the right to homeschool your child. From the Washington Times:

It is no secret that home-schooling is growing and gaining credibility as a viable educational alternative.

More and more colleges are actively recruiting home-schooled students, each year there are an estimated 50,000-plus home-school high school graduates who find work or go to college and thousands of new curriculum products have become available over the past five years. Meanwhile, the number of home-schoolers continues to grow by 7 percent to 15 percent each year, more states are reforming their laws to remove the burdens from parents who want to home educate, and home-schoolers continue to excel in national competitions as well as on standardized tests. In short, home-schooling is a major success story.

Now, for the first time, home-schooling has been recognized in an opinion by a U.S. Supreme Court justice as a viable educational alternative. Morse v. Frederick, which recently made national headlines, involves free speech and whether a public school can regulate what a student says. The 5-4 decision said that the school principal, Deborah Morse, did not violate the free speech rights of Joseph Frederick when she took down his pro-marijuana banner, which said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The student had violated school policy and was advocating illegal drug use.

While the Home School Legal Defense Association agrees with the ruling in this specific case, it is a reminder to all families that when your child enters the public school, you have virtually ceded your parental rights to the public school.

The clearest explanation of this view was expressed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Fields v. Palmdale, when it said, "While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child."

This is the reason many parents have chosen to home-school, especially those parents who have a religious worldview, because they know their children will be taught secular values by the public system.

In Morse v. Frederick, however, Justice Clarence Thomas said, "If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move."

This is the first time the Supreme Court specifically has recognized home-schooling as a viable educational alternative. HSLDA has worked for 24 years to advance a parent's right to home-school and to promote home-schooling to the general public.

After 24 years, it is gratifying to read the words of a Supreme Court justice who rightfully placed home-schooling on a level playing field with public and private schools. This kind of recognition is tremendously significant to the home-school community.

It's another step on the long road to raise home-schooling to the point where, when the terms public, private or home-school are used in the same sentence, they all will be seen as mainstream educational alternatives.

Home-schooling is a modern education success story and HSLDA urges all parents to carefully consider their educational options. Home-schooling should be front and center because it is a viable alternative that has helped hundreds of thousands of children become mature, productive citizens.

If you don't like how your local government school is educating Little Johnny, you can either move to a different school district, enroll him in a private school, or home school. That's it. Efforts have existed for years by the NEA (leftist teachers union) to eliminate homeschooling, since homeschooling makes their job of indoctrinating and dumbing down your kid considerably tougher.

No, I am not bashing all or even most public school teachers. I am blessed to know far more decent, competent, and dedicated teachers than those who are not. I also recognize that some parents are about as sharp as a velvet bag full of styrofoam peanuts and probably aren't serving their children well by educating them directly. However, I reflexively defer to parents in determining the best interests of their kids until it can be demonstrated that the contrary is occurring.

Maybe homeschooling is for your kids. Maybe it's not. The good news is that it's your choice.

"Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief"

2007-07-10T10:03:00.000-04:00

I'm wondering if this guy is so anti-Second Amendment now. Knowing the "good enough for me, but not for thee" attitude of liberal lawmakers, I suspect his views are unchanged. From FNC:

A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday.

Rep. Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he's building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Senties said.

Police said Miles, who is in his freshman term, is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. No charges have been filed against Miles, Senties said.

Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called "castle doctrine," passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

Isn't it beyond stupid that our politicians feel compelled to "allow" us to take on an intruder in our home? Sorry, but I don't need some detached-from-reality legislator's permission to defend myself, my family, or my possessions from thugs!

RFK, Jr.: Politicians who don't buy global "warming" nonsense are "traitors"

2007-07-10T07:52:00.000-04:00

RFK, Jr., presumably sober (though that's no guarantee) when he uttered this, adds "traitor" to Ellen Goodman's "Holocaust deniers" lexicon of labels for people who don't buy the junk science known as manmade global "warming". From Newsday:

However, Etheridge aside, it was nonmusicians at this concert who made the most passionate pleas about demanding action for the environment. "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

There you have it, folks. Going overseas and poormouthing our leaders and our troops doesn't count as "treason". Attempting to undermine the troops' morale and mission while giving the Al Jazeera Terrorvision Network sound bites to use in their propaganda isn't "treason". But have any doubts that global "warming" is real or that it is manmade, and you're right up there with Benedict Arnold, pal!

Dipsh#t.

Fortunately, we have teachers trying to keep our kids off of the path to "treason"!

D.C. politician robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight

2007-07-10T07:35:00.000-04:00

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin. Just how effective is D.C.'s total gun ban (which, by the way, was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court)? It's so effective that their deputy mayor for education was held up by two armed (i.e. with guns) robbers. Details here.

The NRA rubs salt in the wound by accurately observing the following:

Just how worthless is Washington, D.C.’s gun ban? It’s so bad in our nation’s capitol that a deputy mayor was recently robbed at gunpoint.

Victor Reinoso is lucky to be alive today, but do you think he’ll be speaking out about the pointlessness of D.C.’s gun ban? Not if he wants to keep his job, he won’t.

Criminals don’t care about gun laws … anymore than they care about D.C.’s complete gun ban.

Ultimately, Victor Reinoso’s robbery probably won’t mean much when it comes to public policy in Washington, D.C. After all, they’ve already stuck with the ban for 30 years- what’s one more innocent victim?

Ouch.

Michael Moore a racist?

2007-07-09T20:56:00.001-04:00

See the video and judge for yourself. Notes Breitbart TV:

Filmmaker Michael Moore went off on CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer during an interview Monday to promote his latest documentary 'Sicko'. Moore blasted the anchor and the network for not doing enough to stop the Iraq war and for doing a 'crap' report on his new film. Moore also mocked the pronunciation of chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. (Not the type of thing that the eagle-eyed filmmaker would miss if it came out of the mouth of one his political enemies.)

I'm looking forward to seeing how the moonbatosphere spins this.

TSA screeners confiscate water bottles, miss bombs

2007-07-09T11:48:00.000-04:00

I still recall the Jesse-like words of the deposed former Senate Dem leader Tom Dasshole: "You don't professionalize unless you federalize." From Albany, NY:

Federal inspectors were able to slip a fake bomb through a checkpoint at Albany International Airport during a test of the facility's Transportation Security Administration screeners, according to individuals familiar with the incident.

The unannounced inspection by TSA officials took place early last week. The airport's security measures failed in five of seven tests, most of the problems occurring at the passenger checkpoint, the sources said.

In one test, TSA inspectors hid the components of a fake bomb in carry-on luggage that also contained a bottle of water. Passengers are prohibited from carrying containers holding more than three ounces of liquids, gels or aerosols through airport checkpoints.

The screeners at Albany International confiscated the water bottle but missed the bomb. In all, the inspectors slipped four banned items through the main checkpoint during the test, sources said.

The TSA, which took over security at the nation's commercial airports after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, conducts random tests of its workforce on a regular basis and failures are common, officials said.

Paul Varville, the TSA's security director at Albany International, could not be reached for comment.

Their words, not mine: Convert or die!

2007-07-09T10:12:00.000-04:00

Or, in the case of Israel, just die.

For those of you peace-at-any-price nitwits who want to know what we can do to make the bloodthirsty camelhumping savages from Jerkwater, Arabia, like us, here you go:

Across town from the site of the recent attempted car-bomb attacks, several thousand Muslims gathered in front of the London Central Mosque to applaud fiery preachers prophesying the overthrow of the British government – a future vision that encompasses an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America.

"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!"
...
The Muslim leader's charge, along with interviews with protesters and a "literal foaming-at-the-mouth" diatribe by another speaker, were captured on tape June 22 by nationally syndicated talk radio host Rusty Humphries.
...
For Humphries, the response of the Muslims at Islam's largest house of worship in the UK was telling.

"Not one said, 'You're not speaking for me' or 'Not in my name.' They stood there and watched and applauded," he told WND.
...
The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, "because freedom is an absolute term."

"Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America," he asked in an attempt to explain. "Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none." (In other words, "freedom of religion" means the freedom to detonate and self-detonate and kill thousands or more, all in the name of your religion. - Ed.)

Humphries asked: "Do you call for that?"

"Of course," he replied, "we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam."
...
"There's nothing we can do to be friends?" Humphries asked.

Abu Saif replied: "There is something you can do to be friends. You can become Muslim."

He also had a simple solution to the conflict in the Holy Land.

"We want the Jews to leave Israel, and to hand the whole of Israel, not just Gaza and the West Bank – the whole of Israel to the Muslims. Only then will the Muslims stop."

There you have it, straight from the devil's mouth. The only way to become friends is to become Muslim. Period. What now, peace-at-any-costers?

NAACP does more Katrina racist demagoguery

2007-07-09T08:09:00.000-04:00

Same sh#t, different flies: "Blah-blah-blah-'Whitey's out to get us', blah-blah-blah-'Bush hates black folks', blah-blah-blah-'Insert Katrina-and-other-completely-unrelated-and-inappropriate-comparison-here', blah-blah...". From Motown:

NAACP National Board Chair Julian Bond said Sunday that the civil rights organization is needed now more than ever because the Bush Administration has done little to support blacks.
...

...Bond said the possibility that New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward, ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, will never be rebuilt is comparable to a “lynching.”

“It can be said that Katrina, like lynching, not only destroyed the work of generations in a single day, but is resulting in a deliberate effort to dispossess black landholders.”

Actually, if anyone is being "lynched", I would say it is the taxpayers:

Federal agents investigating widespread fraud after the Gulf Coast hurricanes in 2005 are sifting through more than 11,000 potential cases, a backlog that could take years to resolve.

Authorities have fielded so many reports of people cheating aid programs, swindling contracts and scamming charities after the hurricanes that Homeland Security inspectors, who typically police disaster aid scams, have been “swamped,” says David Dugas, the U.S. attorney in Baton Rouge.

“There’s definitely a backlog,” says Dugas, whose office helps coordinate an anti-fraud task force formed after the hurricanes. “Right now, that means we might not get to some cases as quickly as some people might like. If there’s still a backlog in two years when we start running up against the statute of limitations, that’s different.”

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita triggered more than $7 billion in disaster aid to Gulf Coast households, plus billions more in government contracts and rebuilding projects.

But I'm sure to the racebaiters like Bond, that's a different (and more acceptable) kind of "lynching".

Robo-potties in South FL?

2007-07-09T07:53:00.000-04:00

OK, this is actually a non-partisan (though definitely a political) post that I just had to pass on. From South Florida, via WND:

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle says his city has a problem with “homosexual activity” in public restrooms and he has a plan to stop it – robotic toilets that allow occupants to stay inside for only a short time before the door automatically opens. ...

Fort Lauderdale police officials said male sex in public restrooms is no longer a problem, but Naugle insists the practice persists and has used recent public meetings and e-mails to constituents to raise the issue. ...

Naugle said the proposed location for the city’s first experimental unit is “the rainbow parking lot” at a local beach considered by some to be the area’s “gay beach.”

“The homosexual newspaper said it’s the ‘gay parking lot.’ That’s not me saying that,” Naugle told the Sun-Sentinel, “that’s what they said. I don’t use the word ‘gay.’ I use the word ‘homosexual.’ Most of them aren’t gay. They’re unhappy.”

OK, I don't care to debate whether gays are happy or not (but if you guys want to do so, I shan't interfere). I just have two points to ponder:

1. Exactly how much time is "enough time" to lay cable? You definitely get an idea of how heavy-handed Big Guvmint is getting when it determines what an appropriate amount of time to pinch a loaf would be. Guys, don't take that newspaper or magazine into the stall, lest ye have the doors fling open for all the world to see (and, presumably, to smell)!

2. The Fort Lauderdale cops who actually work the beat say that male sex in public restrooms is no longer a problem. Mayor Naugle insists the practice persists. Intemperate question...how would he know?

Cops: "It's not going on!"

Naugle: "Yes, it is! (pauses) Uh...I have 'sources' that tell me it does. I mean, it's not like I've been around it! Just, uh, trust me already, OK???"

Quote of the day

2007-07-09T07:47:00.000-04:00

In a fashion reminiscent of Jenjiss Khan...sorry, Kerry flashback!...of Al Gore the Arrogant, this quote sounds exactly like something that pompous gasbag would say. From the NY Daily News:

With Al Gore in the news for battling global warming and Al Gore 3rd in the news for getting toasted, my favorite NYPD detective recalled a story that helps explain how father and son each became a particular kind of loser.

The story was told to the detective by a Secret Service agent some years back as they worked security for a dignitary visiting New York. Such details largely consist of just standing there for as long as 12 hours and the talk turned to a day when the Secret Service agent was assigned to then-Vice President Gore.

The detective recalls the agent saying that he was outside a room where Gore was loudly berating Al 3rd for something to do with school. The agent then overheard the senior Gore say to his son something truly stunning.

"What, do you want to end up like those guys standing outside the door?"

The guys being the agent and his partners, highly trained and intensely dedicated individuals who remain ever-ready to take a bullet for whomever they are assigned to protect.

You would think that such selfless and motivated people would be perfect role models for a teenager having a little trouble staying on track.

You have to wonder if the son might have turned out differently if the father had asked the agent to take his boy under his wing.

"Now [the senior Gore] is probably wishing his son did end up like those guys outside his door," the detective said yesterday. (Ouch! - Ed.)
...
King asked about the son's arrest and Gore would only say this was "a private family matter." But, if there now seems just an outside chance the father might end up becoming President after all, one thing that can now be said for certain about Al 3rd is that he will never end up like those guys outside the door.

The Secret Service does not hire people with criminal records.

"He should be so lucky," my favorite detective said.

What an @ssh0le! That he is not the Commander-in-Chief (despite his best attempts at grand larceny) is proof that karma has a wicked sense of humor and a mean set of molars.

San Franistan catfight

2007-07-09T07:41:00.000-04:00

Fffft-ffffft-row-row! From Breitbart:

Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

Congrats, San Franistan. Your choices are "moonbat" and "moonbattier"!

Rudy gets booed in Jax for endorsing current income tax system

2007-07-09T07:09:00.000-04:00

This alone could cost him my vote. From My Way News:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani ran into a buzz saw of opposition Saturday when he explained his opposition to a flat federal income tax.

Giuliani addressed a group of about 500 people in a standing-room only crowd at a town hall meeting at the University of North Florida, answering questions for about 30 minutes on a variety of topics from Iraq and Iran to Social Security and his plan for tax cuts.

Several dozen people jeered when Giuliani, in response to a question, said he would not be in favor of a flat tax.

"I have to study it some more," the former New York City mayor said. "I don't think a flat tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates."

Giuliani emphasized he supported a simplified tax system and cuts in federal taxes, including elimination of the so-called death tax, but his response to the flat tax question brought some cat calls and jeers. "I have a real question whether it would be the right transition for our economy," he said.

Actually, Rudy, anything that does away with that leviathan of a tax code we have right now would be fantastic. Anywho, in a little display of irony:

... Businessman Steve Forbes, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination twice, based his campaign on a flat tax. Forbes has endorsed Giuliani.

"I'm endorsing the guy who thinks my idea sucks!" Whatever, Steve.

I wonder if anyone has even bothered to ask Rudy about the Fair Tax?

Hypocrisy, irony, or both?

2007-07-07T16:36:00.000-04:00

You be the judge:

As Madonna bounds on to the huge Wembley stage to save the planet, how the assembled Greenies will cheer.

The superstar is today fronting the massive Live Earth event, with nine concerts played over 24 hours across seven continents before an audience of two billion.

The much-hyped bid to save the world is being masterminded by former U.S. vice president Al Gore - who helped focus attention on the environmental movement with his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth - and features artists including The Police, Red Hot Chili Peppers, UB40 and Metallica.

No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle 'climate crisis'.

Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could, however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances - having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.

Indeed, Madonna's carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego - she has vowed that she will 'speak to the planet' at Wembley. In fact, an apology might be in order - for the superstar's energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".

For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.
...
Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

Travel forms the vast majority of the 'carbon footprint' talked of by ecological campaigners - contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental 'cost'.

Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.

"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge." ...

Once again, "do as I say, not as I do" and "good enough for me, but not for thee" rule the day for these jerks.

There's much more in the article, especially the indulgences scheme known as "carbon offsets" (like the ones Gore buys from himself). But I think you get the idea: normal people (i.e. us peons) with Hummers are bad while celebrities with multiple gas guzzler cars and jets are good. Got it?

Update on that dual Muslim-Christian moonbat priestess

2007-07-06T12:07:00.001-04:00

Recall that story where the Episcopalian priestess said she was both Muslim AND Christian? If not, here's your background. As you know, it is theologically impossible to be both Muslim and Christian. Fortunately, sanity has prevailed, at least for the time being. From Seattlestan's fishwrap:

The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, a local Episcopal priest who announced she is both Muslim and Christian, will not be able to serve as a priest for a year, according to her bishop.

During that year, Redding is expected to “reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam,” the Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, bishop of the Diocese of Rhode Island, wrote in an e-mail to Episcopal Church leaders.

Redding was ordained more than 20 years ago by the then-bishop of Rhode Island, and it is that diocese that has disciplinary authority over her.

During the next year, Redding “is not to exercise any of the responsibilities and privileges of an Episcopal priest or deacon,” Wolf wrote in her e-mail. Wolf could not be reached for immediate comment.
...
“I understand that one of my options would be to voluntarily leave the priesthood,” Redding said.

At this moment, though, she is not willing to do that. “The church is going to have to divorce me if it comes to that,” she said. “I’m not going to go willingly.”

There's hope for that church yet.

MSM fuzzy math

2007-07-06T07:44:00.000-04:00

Oh, those crazy Euros:

The stereotype of men as being strong and silent, and women as talkative and gossipy, has been overturned by a detailed study of how many words they utter every day.

As well as showing that when it comes to yakking, men chat just as much as women, it also reveals that women’s conversations are more about people, relationships and networking, whereas men’s tend to be more about showing off, tools or cars.
...
To catch all of their chit-chat, they developed an electronically-activated recorder that digitally, and unobtrusively, logged their conversations.

The results: women in the study spoke a daily average of 16,215 words during their waking hours, versus an average of 15,669 words for men.

Now while I did go to Florida State (so cut me some slack), I'm pretty sure the remedial math course I took four times did manage to properly convey that 16,215 > 15,669. In other words, the study puportedly debunks the claim that women talk more than men by showing that...uh...women talk more than men.

I wonder if math is considered "right-wing" the same way jogging is? If so, that would explain the Euros' screw-up in this article.

Catch-and-release of criminal aliens dooms 15-year-old girl

2007-07-06T07:30:00.001-04:00

From the Commercial Appeal:

Maury County deputies and federal agents are looking for a man who is accused of raping a 15-year-old girl only hours after being released from jail. Juan Villa, 24, has been in the Maury County Jail 11 times since 2001 on charges of assault, public intoxication, driving without a license and contempt of court.

He was released from jail on $1,000 bail on Friday at about 9:45 p.m. and is suspected of raping the 15-year-old shortly after midnight. During the investigation, a 13-year-old girl also told deputies she was raped by Villa, Sheriff Enoch George said.

Villa is suspected of being in the country illegally and George said the department had contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement about him before he was released from jail but the federal agents said they would deal with him later.

Villa should have been deported the first time he was jailed, much less the 10 times after that. But our criminal alien apologists want their cheap lettuce, so their enablers in INS/ICE (as well as Congress and the White House) have a 15-year-old girl's lost innocence as their trophy.

French deplore...jogging?

2007-07-06T07:11:00.000-04:00

I swear, the Frogs have become a walking, talking, surrendering parody! Observe:

President Sarkozy has fallen foul of intellectuals and critics who see his passion for jogging as un-French, right-wing and even a ploy to brainwash his citizens.

Attacks on Mr Sarkozy’s pastime, which he has made a symbol of his presidency, began on the internet as soon as he bounded up the steps of the Elysée Palace in shorts when he took office in May. That moment has become the icon of his hyperenergetic administration. The grumbling has now moved to television and the press.

“Is jogging right wing?” wondered Libération, the left-wing newspaper. Alain Finkelkraut, a celebrated philosopher, begged Mr Sarkozy on France 2, the main state television channel, to abandon his “undignified” pursuit. He should take up walking, like Socrates, Arthur Rimbaud, the poet, and other great men, said Mr Finkelkraut.

“Western civilisation, in its best sense, was born with the promenade. Walking is a sensitive, spiritual act. Jogging is management of the body. The jogger says I am in control. It has nothing to do with meditation.”

Mr Sarkozy’s habit infuriates his critics – and some supporters – because he flaunts it so hard. ...

I don't even know what else to say, since I think this absurdity just kind of speaks for itself. I mean, French jokes are so easy to make, yet here they are just begging to be mocked yet again. Oh, well, I guess we should oblige them and mock to our hearts' content.

AndrewR at Ace of Spades wonders thusly:

I may be missing the point of all this, but I think what they're trying to say is that all the fat, lazy Americans who don't exercise and weigh themselves with livestock scales are really...progressives?

Night & Day

2007-07-05T12:21:00.000-04:00

John Conyers (Moonbat-MI) then on presidential pardons/grants of clemency:

Is this the same Conyers that voted AGAINST a resolution condemning Clinton for giving clemency to TERRORISTS?

[EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS — (House of Representatives - September 09, 1999)]

NOTE: The resolution (H.Con.Res. 180) passed by a vote of 311-41; 72 voted ‘present.’ (Tally available here.)

And here’s what Conyers had to say THEN:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency…Now the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts that apply in each request for clemency.”

Conyers now:

"In light of yesterday's announcement by the President that he was commuting the prison sentence for Scooter Libby, it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused," John Conyers said. "Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."

"If any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that?" Apparently, Mr. Conyers, the answer is "Yes, there are Members who don't understand that." Or should I say "don't remember that"?

BTW, Tony Snow weighed in on the matter of Bubba and Conyers flapping their gums over the Libby thing:

The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush's decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.

"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Quote of the day

2007-07-05T12:18:00.000-04:00

From Jack Kelly:

"Scooter" Libby will serve as much time in prison for lying under oath to a federal grand jury as Bill Clinton served for lying under oath to a federal grand jury.

Vic Hanson's thoughts on the revolt over criminal immigration

2007-07-05T12:01:00.000-04:00

Bear with me for yet another post on criminal immigration, but this one is worth the read. From Victor Davis Hanson, via RCP:

After the utter collapse in the Senate last week of a comprehensive immigration bill, Washington insiders are blaming everyone and everything.

Supposedly, talk-radio hysteria killed the bill. Or was it the purported racism of yokels? Or did most of us fail to appreciate the hidden benefits of open borders so clear only to those in Washington?

In reality, the 1,000-page bill failed because millions of Americans opposed it, believing, among other things, that it provided virtual amnesty to illegal aliens. Through the "Z visa," the bill offered illegal aliens legal worker status - along with a ticket to eventual citizenship - after only a precursory background check.

More importantly, people were skeptical, to say the least, of hundreds of pages of more regulations when the last "comprehensive" immigration legislation, in 1986, either made things worse or was largely unenforced. That's why various polls reveal that most Americans were against the new bill, with, according to a June Rasmussen poll, less than 25 percent in favor of the Senate version.

What causes this grassroots furor, and where will it lead?

The public thinks anti-terrorism efforts are futile when hundreds of miles on our southern border are, for mysterious reasons, left wide open.

Exactly. However, anytime that one of us proper-thinking Americans brings up national security concerns, our concerns are dismissed by the criminal alien apologists. With that many criminal aliens coming in undetected, why is it unreasonable to think that terrorists could do the same thing? Continuing:

Then there is the American sense of fair play: Thousands of would-be legal immigrants wait in line from all over the world to come to this country. So why the special considerations that seem designed to address the concerns of just one group - especially when Mexico already supplies the largest number by far of our legal immigrants?

Americans were brought up on lectures about the sanctity of the law. We were supposed to revere the Social Security system. Yet when the government discusses millions of phony Social Security numbers used by illegal aliens, it is usually in the cynical sense of whether that con enriches or bankrupts the system - not whether such rampant fraud is legally and morally wrong.

Most citizens fret if they leave the house without their driver's license. They get nervous when their car registration or proof of insurance is lost - and so grow irate that millions of others on the road don't or can't share their concern.

Exactly right again. Anytime that one of us proper-thinking Americans brings up law-abiding and fairness concerns, those concerns are also dismissed by the criminal alien apologists. I guess the desire for cheap lettuce and strawberries just trumps some otherwise intelligent people's ability to see this obvious problem of rewarding bad behavior. Continuing:

...If the American public wants the border closed first, and discussion of everything else later, is that really such a bad thing?

Were the government to enforce laws already passed - fine employers for hiring illegal aliens, actually build the approved fences, beef up the border patrol, issue verifiable identification - we would then soon be dealing with a static population of illegal aliens. And that pool would insidiously shrink, not annually grow.

Some of the 12 million here illegally would willingly return home. Some with criminal records could be deported. Some would marry U.S. citizens. Some could be given work visas. Some could apply for earned citizenship.

The point is that our formidable powers of assimilation would finally catch up and have time to work on a population that would be at last fixed, quantifiable and identifiable. As aliens were more readily integrated with the general citizen population, Spanish would evolve into a helpful second, not a single alternate, language. Wages would rise for workers already here - many of them soon to be Mexican-American citizens - without competition from a perpetual influx of illegal aliens who work more cheaply.

Mexico would be forced to deal with rather than export its own problems. Billions in earnings would stay in the United States to help our own entry-level and legal immigrants from Mexico, not be sent back as remittances to relatives.

In short, a savvy public is neither racist nor hysterical in wanting the border closed now. It's the only comprehensive solution to the present mess of illegal immigration.

We have concerns for national security, for fairness, and for obeying the law, but to criminal alien apologists, those aren't really our concerns. Nope, we're just a bunch of "quacking" bigots who don't like Hispanics, and no amount of reasoning (even if it's eloquently stated like Hanson does) is going to convince these demagogues to the contrary. Therefore, I shan't try.

Quote of the day, with some perspective

2007-07-05T07:37:00.000-04:00

From Globe Gazette:

Mason City VFW members are refusing to march in the Clear Lake Fourth of July parade Wednesday because they are not being allowed to fire their rifles.

The Secret Service, in Clear Lake to provide protection for former president Bill Clinton and his wife, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, will not allow firearms in the parade, said Jim Kantaris, quartermaster of VFW Post 733 in Mason City.

“There’s too much political stuff. They’re making us change 50 years of tradition because of two people,” said Kantaris. “And one of them is a draft dodger who turned the White House into a whorehouse.”

While I certainly love the "White House into a whorehouse" comment, I have to disagree with Kantaris' view on the gun thing for one reason: it is a security issue with a former president and his ~~partner in crime~~ "wife" there.

Obviously, I'm no fan of Bubba or Shrillary, Duh. But I have enough respect for the office of the president to know that former presidents should be entitled to maximum protection, and while the guns may fire blanks, it's still a security risk. Yes, it sucks to deviate from tradition, but them's the breaks.

Silky Pony's $1,250 haircut

2007-07-05T07:24:00.000-04:00

Look, I know that the "Silky's haircut" stories aren't exactly Page One material. But for the love of Pete, I swear I cannot help myself in being amused by stuff like this from Mr. "Two Americas":

For four decades, Joseph Torrenueva has cut the hair of Hollywood celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Bob Barker, so when a friend told him in 2003 that a presidential candidate needed grooming advice, he agreed to help.

The Beverly Hills hairstylist, a Democrat, said he hit it off with then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at a meeting in Los Angeles that brought several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance. Since then, Torrenueva has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times.

At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.

Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.

"He has nice hair," the stylist said of Edwards in an interview. "I try to make the man handsome, strong, more mature and these are the things, as an expert, that's what we do."
...
Edwards said that he was embarrassed by the cost and that he "didn't know it would be that expensive," suggesting the haircuts were some kind of aberration given by "that guy" his staff had arranged. ...

Dropping a grand for a 'do doesn't exactly add much to the "mature" factor, Pierre (or Nigel or Christophe or, as Silky refers to him the the story, "that guy").

Hero cabbie tears tendon for kicking jihadist in the 'nads

2007-07-05T05:25:00.000-04:00

If you're gonna injure yourself, it might as well be by kicking some camelhumping Islamonutbar terrorist in the sack. From the UK:

A HERO cabbie who took on the Glasgow Airport terror suspects told yesterday how he booted one of them in the privates.

Alex McIlveen, 45, kicked the man, whose body was in flames, so hard that he tore a tendon in his foot.

But he said last night: "He didn't even flinch. I couldn't believe he didn't go down.

"A doctor told me later I'd damaged a tendon in my foot."

The burned suspect was named last night as Khalid Ahmed, a Lebanese doctor.

He is critically ill with burns at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, where he is believed to have worked.

Slight correction: Ahmed isn't critically ill with burns. He's critically ill with burns and a pair of cracked oysters, compliments of a Scottish cabbie. Without a functioning set of jewels, Ahmed, you won't be getting much mileage out of those 72 virgins, will you, @ssh0le?

"If your nae Scottish, ye are crrrrrrrrrrrap!"

Chutzpah, thy name is Bubba

2007-07-05T05:16:00.000-04:00

Awesome analysis by the jaw-dropper (in more ways than one) known as Bill Clinton:

...
Former President Bill Clinton criticized President Bush on Tuesday for commuting the prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. and tried to draw a distinction from his own controversial pardons.

Yes, that’s right. The perjurer who sold pardons for fun and profit is criticizing Bush for commuting Libby’s sentence. My friends, that kind of chutzpah ought to be bottled up and sold on the market, so pure and potent is it.
In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, “You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what’s your reaction to what President Bush did?”

“Yeah, but I think the facts were different,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

Replace the “theys” with an “I” and you have the truth. We’re looking at a true sociopath here, a man who never let a pesky little thing like the law get in the way of a good time, a man who turned the Oval Office into the next best thing to a brothel, a man whose serial indiscretions earned the official desigination of “bimbo eruptions,” lecture Bush on the single commutation of a sentence that was the result of a highly dubious investigation into a crime that never occurred. And this man might wind up back in the White House.
“It’s wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up,” Mr. Clinton added. “And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it.”

Well, that’s because Richard Armitage did it, and he didn’t work in the White House at the time. But it’s a useful lie, so Bill Clinton is the surest man on earth to wield it.
Mr. Clinton pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency, including Marc Rich, the fugitive broker who had been charged with evading tens of millions of dollars in taxes, and who was the former husband of a top donor to Democrats and Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign.

Rather than tread lightly on the Libby commutation, the Clintons have chosen to confront it; Clinton advisers said there was no real alternative, because the news media would bring up the Rich pardon anyway.

They’ve chosen to confront it they way they choose to confront everything–by lying, dissembling, and then going on the offensive.

Just let the record show that Mr. Clinton is a perjurer who had his license to practice before the Supreme Court taken away. Let the record show that he sold pardons to his rich friends. Let the record show that he’s still a brazen liar. And let the record show that it was his pal Sandy Berger who stole sensitive documents from the National Archives, hid them under a trailer, then took them home and destroyed them to cover up something that the Clintonistas didn’t want going public, and remember that Berger’s actions made the 9-11 Commission’s work incomplete, and we’ll never know what he covered up. And let the country remember the missing Rose law firm billing records that mysteriously turned up in the Clintons’ White House residence, and all the rest of that sordid mess that the Clintons drag around with them like a trailer park full of skeletons wherever they go.

I'd like a large order of hypocrisy with a side order of myopia and shamelessness to go, please.

Happy 4th!

2007-07-04T13:54:00.000-04:00

I hope everyone has a wonderful Independence Day. The City Troll has a great post today about the greatness of this country and its roots. Be safe, be thankful, and enjoy!

Hope for Euros yet! Poll: Brits more worried about Fido's piles than global "warming"

2007-07-03T14:09:00.001-04:00

From the Beeb:

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

Graffiti? Dog crap? Those things worry Brits more than does that piece of science fiction known as global "warming" (or "climate change", depending on the time of the year).

Reflections on the Libby clemency; UPDATE: Shakedown, Jr., wants to investigate and impeach

2007-07-03T13:50:00.000-04:00

UPDATES AT BOTTOM.

As many of you know by now, Scooter Libby was granted executive clemency by Bush yesterday. Here is his statement. I've got mixed feelings on the matter.

On the one hand, Libby lied under oath. Period. That's perjury, and yes, I know that Bubba got away with it. But since OJ got away with murder, would you say that you are now entitled to kill your spouse? No. Just because Bubba wasn't convicted in a court of law for perjury doesn't mean that the law ceases to exist. Therefore, in my view, Libby did commit perjury, end of story.

On the other hand, I was stunned to see jurors talking afterwards to the MSM about how they wanted to nail Cheney and/or Rove, but since that wasn't happening, Libby would have to do. Those particular jurors (two that I know of) were determined from the start to advance their political agenda. That's hardly what I call a fair trial. Also, as Dubya rightly notes, Libby "was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."

I disagree with Bush when he says that "My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged." Libby will likely get a lucrative book and/or speaking deal, so while I have no doubt he has suffered up to now, I do indeed doubt he's going to feel the repercussions from it for very long.

Prediction: Just as the left got all bent out of shape when Bush exercised his constitutional authority to fire the U.S. Attorneys and wanted to hold investigations into Bush exercising said authority, look for them to investigate this exercise of his authority, too.

You know what's funny, though? I don't seem to recall the left getting too bent at Bubba for exercising his authority on Mark Rich (international fugitive and tax evader), or on Mel Reynolds (convicted pedophile, obstruction of justice, bank fraud), or on Dorothy Rivers (who swindled $1.2 million in federal grant money for Jesse's Rainbow/PUSH), or on Carlos Vignali (organized coke trafficker), or on Benjamin Berger, Kalmen Stern, David Goldstein, and Jacob Elbaum (conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, false statement, money laundering, and filing a false tax return...but were all part of the Hasidic Jewish community in NY that inexplicably defied all prior voting patterns and voted overwhelmingly for Shrillary in her 2000 Senate bid, which I'm sure was TOTALLY coincidental and not a quid pro quo based on promises for upcoming pardons).

But that was different, I'm sure.

UPDATE (7/3/2007 1:47 P.M. EST): Well, what a prophet I turned out to be, huh? Jesse Junior is calling for a Congressional investigation into Bush exercising his constitutional authority, calling said exercise of constitutional authority a "very serious crime against the constitution of the United States" and an impeachable offense. Because, you know, doing what the Constitution says you can do is...uh...a crime against the Constitution?

Quote of the day, part II

2007-07-03T09:14:00.001-04:00

From Silky Pony's fundraiser...er, wife:

Mrs. Edwards said that any impression that she was the 800-pound gorilla of a spouse (I knew she was a bit on the chunky side, but 800 lbs? She doesn't look half-bad for a 3/4-ton primate. - Ed.) — second this year perhaps only to another candidate’s spouse who once lived in the White House — resulted from the fact that she was a person given to strong opinions, expressed strongly.
...
“But I like it when somebody expresses their view with clarity and force,” she said.

She does? Seriously?

I'm gonna have to go ahead and call "bovine feces" on that one, Lizzie.

McCain's sinking campaign

2007-07-03T08:57:00.000-04:00

Infuriating the base by constantly voting against their interests, thumbing your nose at them, sidling up next to Teddy the Hutt and kissing his ring, and pimping the amnesty deal full bore doesn't strike me as a prudent way to win your party's presidential primary. People don't give up much of their money when that stuff happens. They can be funny that way.

So does Johnny Mac think that he's the problem? Maybe his message? Nope. It's the staff's fault. From MyWay News:

Republican John McCain reorganized his campaign Monday, cutting staff in every department as he raised just $11.2 million in the last three months and reported an abysmal $2 million cash on hand for his presidential bid.

"We confronted reality and we dealt with it in the best way that we could so that we could move forward with this campaign focused on winning our primaries in the early states," said Terry Nelson, McCain's campaign manager.

Once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, McCain trails top Republican rivals in money and polls.

More than 50 staffers, and perhaps as many as 80 to 100, were being let go, and senior aides will be subject to pay cuts as the Arizona senator bows to six months of subpar fundraising, according to officials with knowledge of the details of the shake up. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the campaign would not publicly discuss details of the restructuring.
...
His popularity among Republicans has dropped since the start of the year. He has become intimately linked to the unpopular Iraq war, and, in recent weeks, he's drawn criticism from already wary conservatives for his support of Bush's immigration reform bill. He declined to participate in an early test of organizational strength in the leadoff state of Iowa this summer, and, he's fighting the perception that he's yesterday's candidate.

Stick a fork in him. He's done.

Quote of the day

2007-07-03T07:38:00.001-04:00

Her Highness on Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby:

"...in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y."

Geez, since when did Shrillary get so mad at her husband for cronyism and ideology trumping competence? Oh, wait...she wasn't talking about Bubba, was she? It was a Republican she was referencing. Well, that's different!

Pots and kettles are coming to mind right now. Not sure why.

UPDATE: About those "Muslim terrorists are poor and uneducated" lie

2007-07-02T10:10:00.001-04:00

UPDATES AT BOTTOM.

You know how apologists for Islamic terrorism like to parrot the "they come from poor backgrounds and have no education, thus no hope" meme? Yes, the same meme that was debunked when we found out about the educated and middle-class-to-affluent backgrounds of the 9/11 hijackers. Anywho, apparently the same meme was being parroted yet again relating to the weekend's terror attack in Scotland.

There's just one slight problem with that...it's not true:

Police said the links between the London attacks and that in Glasgow, where two men tried to smash a blazing vehicle into the city's airport on Saturday afternoon, were "becoming ever clearer".

One of the Glasgow attackers is believed to be a doctor, possibly an Iraqi.
...
The suspected ringleader of the plot is also a doctor, a Jordanian. Neurologist Dr Mohammed Asha, 26, and his burka-wearing wife, 27, were held in a dramatic operation as they drove on the M6 in Cheshire with their two-year-old son on Saturday.

Two doctors? How can this be? I thought it was only poor disenchanted Muslims, alienated and ostracized by the "have's" of society, who did such things! If they're not careful, people are going to start asking questions about the "religion of peace", right?

UPDATE (7/3/2007 - 7:14 A.M. EST): Make that five doctors who hatched the plot in British hospitals. So much for that "first do no harm" oath.

Another wingnut alert: pyro torches wrong clinic

2007-07-02T08:54:00.000-04:00

Two wingnut alerts in one day. Must be a record here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS). From Iowa:

A Detroit man was sentenced to five years in prison Friday for trying to burn down a women's health clinic that he mistakenly thought performed abortions.

David McMenemy, 46, pleaded guilty in January to arson against a business affecting interstate commerce. He could have been sentenced up to 20 years in prison.

Police said McMenemy drove to Davenport and crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Health Care Center lobby at 4:30 a.m. on Sept. 11. He then lit a Gatorade bottle filled with gasoline on fire, walked away from his car and surrendered to firefighters.

McMenemy was ordered to pay $263,252 in restitution for damage to the clinic. The judge also ordered McMenemy to follow substance abuse treatment and continue to receive mental health treatment while imprisoned and when he is released.

"It was wrong," McMenemy told U.S. District Court Judge John Jarvey at the sentencing hearing. "Even if it was an abortion clinic, it would still be wrong.

"I'm sorry for the hurt and shame of my family, and I want to distance myself from any pro-life organizations."

The Edgerton clinic provides prenatal care and medical services to low-income and underprivileged women. It does not perform abortions, nor does it make abortion referrals, clinic officials said.

What a dumb#ss! If you're going to be some religious nutbar who thinks he's doing God's work, at least make sure the voices in your head are getting their facts straight.

These fanatics are walking contradictions. If, as the prior post indicates, God wipes out the blights on humanity Himself via natural disasters, then why would He need us to carry out acts of arson on His behalf? Pick a nutbar talking point and stick to it, please!

Wingnut alert: Yet another "God destroys Earth 'cuz of gays" comment

2007-07-02T08:32:00.000-04:00

When it's not that deplorable media whore Fred Phelps, it's some other "man of God" who purports to know why God hits the planet with floods, famine, plane crashes, etc. From the UK:

The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops.

One diocesan bishop has even claimed that laws that have undermined marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless.

While those who have been affected by the storms are innocent victims, the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching.

The Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, argued that the floods are not just a result of a lack of respect for the planet, but also a judgment on society's moral decadence.

"This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused."

While it's without question that society's moral fabric has been decaying, it is beyond ludicrous to say that innocent people (including children that don't even know the words "gay" or "lesbian", much less practice that lifestyle) are being killed by God because of the Almighty's distaste for queers.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: The Bible is clear on homosexuality, and no amount of spinning changes that. However, to assert that God will snuff out innocent human life simply because he's mad at people not even around or near the innocent (in this case, non-gay and people who oppose gay marriage laws) is sheer lunacy. I mean, one would think that God possesses a much better aim than that, right? "Adam and Steve are biting the pillow, so I think I'll wipe out their entire street. That'll show 'em!" Idiots.

Babies are liars?

2007-07-02T08:30:00.000-04:00

From the UK:

Whether lying about raiding the biscuit tin or denying they broke a toy, all children try to mislead their parents at some time. Yet it now appears that babies learn to deceive from a far younger age than anyone previously suspected.

Behavioural experts have found that infants begin to lie from as young as six months. Simple fibs help to train them for more complex deceptions in later life. (Such as Democratic politics? - Ed.)

I believe the baby used in the study was named William Jefferson something...

"Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny"

2007-07-02T08:21:00.000-04:00

Another global "warming" skeptic, or as Ellen Goodman calls them, "Holocaust denier", in the Chicago Sun-Times:

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. (If hurricanes have declinded in the last 40 years, and global "warming" has purportedly increased in the last 40 years, then how can the two be connected? - Ed.) Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

Recall Mel Martinez?

2007-06-30T20:12:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin brought this to my attention:

So, Sen. Mel Martinez is mad about the failure of shamnesty. He is challenging opponents to act:
The chairman of the Republican Party on Friday lambasted Democrats and Republicans who helped kill an immigration bill in the Senate and challenged them to come up with a solution beyond “just build a fence along the border.”

“The voices of negativity now have a responsibility to come up with an answer, ” RNC Chairman and U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez said.

“How will you fix the situation to make peoples’ lives better? How will you continue to grow the economy? How will we bring people out of the shadows for our national security and for the sake of being a country that is just?” he demanded.

Attention, Floridians who want to act by replacing pro-shamnesty politicians with pro-enforcement lawmakers who keep their word: There’s a petition recall Mel Martinez here. The sponsors explain:
The site www.RecallMel.com was launched June 18th 2007 by central Florida IT Tech Mr. Dewey Wallace to protest what he views as a reversal of Senator Martinez’s campaign promises of no Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. The website has a secure SSL page designed to gather signatures in an attempt to make a legal recall via special election of the Senator.

Even though the stated goal of RecallMel.com to gather enough registered Florida voters to recall the Senator, Mr. Wallace readily admits that it is going to be an uphill battle as over 514,000 signatures are required, and no national recall has ever succeeded. However seeing this as an opportunity to set a new legal precedent, Mr. Wallace states RecallMel.com is moving forward with an optimistic eye on success.

I urge my Floridian guests to sign the petition to recall this wolf in sheep's clothing. Between his flip-flop on amnesty and his standing in the way of energy independence, this no-good RINO needs to go.

"Don't worry, Mel. If anyone knows how to revive a seemingly dead political career, it's me."

Hilldawg and W-Buff pining away for higher taxes

2007-06-29T12:06:00.000-04:00

Thanks to KG for passing this on. During the Shrillary fundraiser last night:

Just in time for the Fourth of July holiday, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y) equated higher taxes with patriotism during the third nationally-televised Democratic Presidential debate Thursday evening.

When asked if she believed Americans were paying enough taxes, Clinton praised billionaire U.S. investor Warren Buffett because, as she said, “He’s honest enough to say, look, tax me because I’m a patriotic American.”

She went on, “We have to change the tax system and we’ve got to get back to having those with the most contribute to this country.”

According to Her Highness' logic, Dick Cheney is more patriotic than she is, since he pays more in taxes. What an imbecile.

Billionaire Warren Buffet decided to chime in on some economic dishonesty:

Buffett said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

That gives the impression that his secretary, surely a middle-class mother of modest means trying to make ends meet, is not being handsomely compensated...to the point where her tax rate is 30%! Quick show of hands here: who wouldn't like to be a receptionist for THAT kind of jack?

Obviously, Buffett is no idiot. He is, however, incredibly misleading, as noted by Harvard economics prof Greg Mankiw:

You might wonder how Mr Buffett managed such a low tax rate. Most likely, it arose because corporate dividends and capital gains are taxed at only 15 percent. But the corporate income that funded those returns was already taxed at the corporate level, where the tax rate is 35 percent. Mr Buffett seems to be ignoring the first round of taxation. Is it possible that the world's most successful has failed to pierce the corporate veil? (If you want to more reliable data on the progressivity of the tax code, see this old post for numbers from the CBO.)

Even more striking to me is a fact that Mr Buffett did not emphasize: how low his taxable income is. His income of $46 million represents a mere 0.1 percent of his reported net worth of over $50 billion. That is not an impressive rate of return!

Why is it so low? I can think of at least four possible ways investors like Mr Buffet can keep their taxable income, as opposed to their true income, low:

1. They hold stocks that pay minimal dividends.
2. They avoid realizing capital gains.
3. They hold some of their portfolios in tax-free municipal bonds.
4. They give appreciated assets to charity, getting a deduction for the current market value without ever having to realize and pay tax on the capital gain.

Notice that raising tax rates, as Mr Buffett seems to want to do, would not much affect any of these tax avoidance strategies. Even if tax rates were raised substantially, the tax savvy Mr Buffet probably wouldn't be paying much in taxes as a proportion of his wealth or as a proportion of his true income.

In other words, higher tax rates would have a minimal effect on Buffett, but a HUGE effect on others who don't earn their money the same way he does. How convenient!

Buffett still pays a gazillion bucks more in income tax than his secretary does, but he's misleading about the rate of taxation on income. Then again, the left usually does get Kerryesque about taxes and tax cuts. The tax rate was cut by a smaller percentage for rich folks than it was for everyone else, but the Dems still scream "Tax cuts for the rich" because the totals (not the rate) were higher. Example: a man paying $10,000/year in taxes gets a 50% cut, and thus pays $5,000/year in taxes; a rich man paying $1 million/year in taxes gets a 1% cut, and thus pays $990,000/year in taxes. The left bitches about the $10k cut the rich guy got when the poorer guy only got $5k...never mind that the poorer guy got a 49% bigger tax cut and the rich guy still paid damned near a cool million in taxes.

Yet all of a sudden, now they want to focus on rate when Warren Buffett wants to use his secretary in an example. Geez, guys, pick a talking point and stick to it!

Plus, if Buffett feels that he's not paying enough to Uncle Sam to grow the bloated imperial monster in DC, he is more than free to cut a check as big as he sees fit and feed the bureaucracy beast. But that would take the sport out of the class envy game, wouldn't it?

Concludes Her Highness:

"So, yes, we have to change the tax system. And we've got to get back to having those with the most contribute to this country."

Right...because they don't pay nearly enough in taxes, do they? Oh, wait... (click to enlarge)

Top 40% pays 3/4 of federal taxes. Shrillary et al say "That's not enough!"

Big Government kicks diabetic elderly man off of train in middle of forest

2007-06-29T09:05:00.000-04:00

With this level of incompetence, why would anyone want Big Government to run our health care system (among other things)? From the New Editor:

If you're among those who are amazed by the seeming incompetence of the government at almost every turn lately, whether it be the White House, Congress ... whatever, this story will fit that impression quite well...

From KPHO.com: (emphasis added)
A 65-year-old St. Louis man is missing after Amtrak personnel, mistaking his diabetic shock for drunk and disorderly behavior, kicked him off a train in the middle of a national forest, according to police in Williams, Ariz.

Police said Roosevelt Sims was headed to Los Angeles but was asked to leave the train shortly before 10 p.m. Sunday at a railroad crossing five miles outside Williams.

"He was let off in the middle of a national forest, which is about 800,000 acres of beautiful pine trees," Lt. Mike Graham said.

Police said there is no train station or running water at the crossing, which is about two miles from the nearest road, at an elevation of about 8,000 feet.

Amtrak personnel told police dispatchers that Sims was drunk and unruly.

The Sims family said Sims is diabetic and was going into shock.

Forget the misdiagnosis concerning his behavior -- how can you you throw someone off a train in the middle of a national forest, two miles from the nearest road???

Amnesty postmortem

2007-06-29T08:08:00.000-04:00

Short, sweet, and to the point from Instapundit:

My advice for next time:

(1) Make the process open, transparent, and timely, with hearings, drafts on the Internet, and no last-minute bills that no one has read;

(2) Earn people's trust, don't demand it, and treat enforcement like it matters;

(3) Respect people who follow the law, and make legal immigration easier, cheaper, and simpler, rather than the Kafkaesque nightmare it is now;

(4) Don't feel you have to be "comprehensive" -- address the problems you can deal with first. The trust needed to deal with other problems will come later, after you've shown some success and some good faith.

I would add "(5) Don't impugn the motives of people with serious concerns about enforcement, rewarding bad behavior, etc., by calling them 'bigots' or 'xenophobes'. Listen to their concerns, even if your mind doesn't change." Friendships have been ruined over this debate because of the tone of the dialogue, not because of the mere presence of the disagreement itself.

I want to dwell on point #4 above, though. I've said from the beginning that the "comprehensive", i.e. "all or nothing" approach was stupid. An analogy to illustrate its absurdity:

You're in your home during a tropical storm/hurricane. A hole's in in your roof and ceiling, and water beings pouring in. Your house also needs some other repairs: the carpet in the bedroom is peeling up in the corner, the bathroom closet's doorknob is horribly loose and probably needs replacing, the stopper in the bathtub is missing, and the tile floor in your kitchen is cracking near the stove and fridge.

The sensible approach? Fix the hole in your roof and ceiling NOW to stop the rain from gushing in! For Pete's sake, those other problems can wait! If you try fixing the other problems now without sealing your roof/ceiling, those other problems will be irrelevant, because your house will be so badly water-damaged that the other fixes will have been for naught.

The "comprehensive" approach? "I'm not going to fix the hole in my roof and ceiling until I figure out what to do about the carpet, doorknob, stopper, and tile floor. It's all or nothing!"

But hey, wasn't "border security" party of the amnesty...er, "comprehensive"...package? Sure it was. It was also part of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in October of last year, which authorized and ordered the building of nearly 900 miles of double-reinforced barriers along major points of criminal immigration entry into the U.S. to be completed no later than April 2008. While there is still roughly ten months left for the completion, our government has thus far completed a whopping...13 miles!

Therefore, our politicians are going to have to forgive us peons for not exactly having the utmost of confidence in their desire/ability to secure the border. It's simple: secure the border, first and foremost, like you said you would do in 1986 and then again in 2006. Cracking down on employers (via an employer verification system) is a fantastic idea, as is fining the violating employers with a fine so stiff that it strips them of any financial incentive to turn a blind eye to criminal immigrants. Deporting illegal aliens who are in jail for other crimes (not just criminal breaking-and-entering into our country) is a no-brainer, which is why many liberal politicians voted that down.

However, until the aforementioned and aforepromised border enforcement is done, don't talk to us about amnesty or "comprehensive" or whatever else.

Jesse Jr.: Apple doesn't fall far from the tree

2007-06-29T07:49:00.000-04:00

From Rep. John Campbell:

Federal Funding for Phantom Airport
Today I introduced an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill that would strip taxpayer funding for the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission in Illinois designated for "minority and small business development and procurement opportunities”. Now I find nothing wrong with minority and small business development; I’m a businessman myself. My problem with this earmark is that Abraham Lincoln National Airport doesn’t exist. There are no long lines, crowded terminals, or delayed flights at this airport. There’s not a single passenger there. The truth is, Abraham Lincoln National Airport only exists in concept which has been developed by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. – who requested the $231,000 for this project.

Here are some facts that you may find interesting:

· The Executive Director for the Airport Commission is Richard Bryant, who also happens to be the Deputy District Administrator for Jackson’s Congressional office.

· Congressman Jackson was the main catalyst behind forming the Airport Commission.

· From a 4/13/06 press release from Congressman Jackson's own campaign, the Airport commission "plans to launch an advertising campaign urging (Illinois) Gov. Rod Blagojevich to lease it the land the state is acquiring for the airfield." From the same press release, "So far, the commission has raised about $100,000, said Jackson aide Rick Bryant, the commission's executive director."

· Later that same year, on November 16, 2006, Congressman Jackson issued a press release from his official office where he promised to not seek federal funding for the airport. “So even with the change of leadership in Congress, I won’t pursue federal funding for the Abraham Lincoln National Airport. Chicago’s share of federal dollars is already committed to O’Hare modernization.”

Congressman Jackson’s request for $231,000 for this non-existent airport, to a commission managed by one of his top congressional staffers that so far has only commissioned an advertising/lobbying campaign, only months after Congressman Jackson himself promised to not request federal funds for this commission, are all reason's why I introduced this amendment to remove these taxpayer provided funds from the Financial Services Appropriations bill. There are some very important questions that Congressman Jackson’s constituents and all taxpayers deserve answered.

The "culture of corruption" chugs along.

Coulter's latest flap, but she fires back

2007-06-29T07:15:00.000-04:00

By now, many of you have heard that just a couple of months or so after jokingly (though in p#sspoor taste) referring to the Breck Girl as "fa&&ot", the mean ol' beanpole Ann Coulter wished a painful death on the beloved Silky Pony. She said "If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Wow. Hard to defend that, huh? Well, not really, once you look at the entire line that lead up to it. While speaking to Chris Cuomo on Good Morning America, the following exchange took place (courtesy of Newsbusters):

Coulter: "Though about the same time, Bill Maher said– And, by the way I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn’t talk about him because you could go into rehab for using that word."

Cuomo: "You said you were joking. You were joking."

Coulter: "Oh, yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't, I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. (Now THAT is funny! "Not funny haha, funny queer...mmm-hmmm!" - Ed.) But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So, I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

I mentioned at The Conservative Manifesto that Coulter should have finished her quote with "I mean, if Bill Maher can say something like that about Dick Cheney and catch no grief from you or your leftist ilk, Chris, then I'm afraid you're going to have to immunize me from any grief, too." Not that this would have resulted in any less dishonesty from the left, but it still would have done some good.

At any rate, Coulter has had enough and has struck back with both barrels blazing. Her retort is here (please read it...you must read it!), and a couple of excerpts follow:

The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.
...
Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?
...
The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance on "Good Morning America" immediately after I appeared Monday morning. But it didn't occur to any of them to simply lie about what I had said. No, it took them nearly 36 hours to concoct a version of that quote that included the Edwards part, but not the Maher part, or what English language speakers call: "the point."

By tomorrow it will be: "Ann Coulter tried to kill John Edwards on 'Good Morning America'!"
...
Let me also quote from campaign consultant Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses":

"(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with "I've never told anyone this before," everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him.
...
John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.
...
Manifestly, I was not making fun of their son's death; I was making fun of John Edwards' incredibly creepy habit of invoking his son's tragic death to advance his political career -- a practice so repellant, it even made John Kerry queasy.

I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

Sub shop customer, retired Marine, renders armed robbers "toes up"

2007-06-28T23:41:00.000-04:00

UPDATE (7:12 A.M. EST): I don't know how I missed it, but the customer who gave a couple of armed punks their celestial dirt nap is a retired Marine. In the span of two days, we've had two elderly Marines teach lawbreaking vermin a lesson (see pickpocket story yesterday).

Chalk one up for the Second Amendment here. Piggybacking on yesterday's story about law-abiding citizens not putting up with criminals is this one from south Florida (via Hot Air):

This is what licensed carry is all about.
According to investigators, two armed men entered the restaurant, pointing guns and demanding money. One customer turned around and saw a gun pointed at his face. Plantation police said that’s when the customer took the law into his own hands.

“As the customer was being forced into the restroom at gunpoint, the customer, who was in fear for his life and legally armed, shot the robbery suspects,” said Plantation Police Dept. Spokesman Robert Rittig.
Police said one of the suspects was fatally shot in the head. The other man was shot in the chest and was able to run nearly 300 yards into a nearby Bank Atlantic parking lot while trying to escape, police said.

Click to watch a video report. It may be the only time you hear a reporter describe someone who shoots and kills in legitimate self-defense as “legally armed and well within his rights.”

Had that customer been in D.C., he'd probably be dead by now. Instead, the world is one thug lighter than it was before the incident (with the other thug presumably heading to prison).

Specter: All the rich people I know support amnesty, and they're the majority

2007-06-28T14:40:00.000-04:00

You abso-freakin'-lutely must see the video on Hot Air of Arlen Sphincter droning on about the "silent majority". You know, those verbal 14% who supported the now-defunct shamnesty bill? Yeah, that "majority". Anywho, from Hot Air:

Video: The people at my gym told me they liked the bill, says Specter

Never mind those polls. What about the “silent majority” comprised of his gardener, the voices in his head, and the guy he works out next to on the elliptical machine at the local Bally’s in Philly?

This is why I scoff at threats that we’re going to bounce those who voted for amnesty with primary challenges. If we had any power to get rid of incumbents, don’t you think we would have sent this tool packing decades ago?

Sphincter may be somewhat immune from being deposed (though Toomey gave him a good run in the GOP primary a couple of years ago), and alas, likely so is Lott, but I firmly believe that others like Grahamnesty, Martinez, and Gregg are ripe for a challenge. Sam Brownback (now being referred to as "Switchback") "Kerry-ed" his vote, voting "Yes" for cloture then reversing course and changing it to "No" afterwards.

By the way, if you wanna see Ted Kennedrunk blow a gasket on the Senate floor, here's a link (scroll down to the video to play it).

AMNESTY DEAD

2007-06-28T12:20:00.001-04:00

You may already know this, but if not, here it is: Amnesty is dead. To use the AP's language, we "drove a stake through" its black heart.

Opposition was bipartisan, but so was unity. McCain can kiss his GOP primary aspirations goodbye, and Lindsey Grahamnesty and Mel Martinez are likely to get a primary opponent in SC and FL, respectively, in 2010.

Speaking of ol' Mel, I sent this to his office a couple of days ago:

You can kiss my future vote goodbye. No hablo "Mel Martinez", Sénor Turncoat!

I never vote Democrat, but I'll be d#mned before I vote for you again. You and Jorgé W. Bush conned me in 2004 for voting for you, and now I need a shower to get that feeling of disgust off of me. Just leave the pesos on the dresser, Sénor Martinez.

Neither you nor your party can expect a friggin' dime from me in the future, you sell-out!

Not that I figured it would make a difference, but I sent it anyway. My other Senator, Bill Nelson, was a pro-amnesty guy, too, but since he just got elected over the inept Katherine Harris last November, he's safe for another 5.5 years.

Anyway, congrats on the work, folks. Some politicians don't like us peons questioning them, but fortunately, others listen. Remember that when you vote next time.

SCOTUS shoots down racial preferences, upholds WA voters' wishes

2007-06-28T11:47:00.000-04:00

From Michelle Malkin:

If any of you followed my work at the Seattle Times, you know how closely I covered the battle against government racial preferences in Washington state. You may remember that Washington passed Initiative 200 to ban government racial preferences in public hiring and education. Despite massive establishment opposition (led by my then-publisher), the measure was approved overwhelmingly–even in liberal enclaves like Seattle and other parts of western Washington. As in California and Michigan, the Left fought bitterly to undermine the letter and spirit of the law. One of the areas where inequality in the name of “diversity” reigned was the Seattle public school system. Several parents rose to challenge the racial bean-counting and have fought in court since 1998. Their case reached the Supreme Court, which will issue a decision this morning.
...
10:34am Eastern update breaking:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students’ race.

The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court’s judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court’s other three liberals.

Chalk one more up for the good guys! With today's shamnesty vote failing, today is turning out to be a darned good day! :-)

Voinovich humiliates himself, then Sessions piles on

2007-06-28T07:21:00.000-04:00

Sen. George Voinovich (RINO-OH), known for sobbing when his constituents bellyached at his objections to confirming John Bolton, embarrassed himself yesterday on Sean Hannity's radio show. The link to the audio is here, but in a nutshell, he didn't know what the Fairness Doctrine was and he was shamed into admitting that he didn't know what was in the amnesty bill (including various amendments). He wound up getting rude to Hannity and, shall we say, "prematurely ending the call"?

Afterwards, on the floor of the Senate, amnesty opponent Sen. Jeff Sessions (true R-AL) piled on the schmuck even further. Money quote:

“Radio talk show hosts know more about this bill than most Senators, if you want to know the truth.”

Not naming names, of course! :-D

Sessions is right, though. So many Senators have been bought off by business interests that they don't need to know what's in the bill...they just need to vote for it.