Feb 22
This gallery contains 2 photos.
DAMN THE CONSTITUTION, FULL SPEED AHEAD! PRESIDENT WON’T TAKE ‘NO’ FOR AN ANSWER That “We Can’t Wait” thing? He meant that. Barack Obama has once again asserted that if Congress does not enact his policies in the future, the US Constitution be damned – the boy king will continue to forge ahead on his own. [...]
Feb 21
This gallery contains 11 photos.
FROM THE END OF GREEK RIOTS TO EASTER IN PALESTINE, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE In last week’s installment of “Are These Headlines Right Around the Corner?“, the Rat reported on Obama’s free bread initiative, Whitney Houston on Mount Rushmore and Iran’s nuclear attack on Israel. Pretty hard stuff to follow, huh? Not so much: GREEK RIOTS END: [...]
Jan 13
This gallery contains 3 photos.
There has been much talk and saber rattling over the recent video depicting four U.S. Marines standing over the corpses of dead Taliban terrorists and urinating on them. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed “total dismay,” and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has called the Marines action “utterly deplorable,” vowing a full investigation and [...]
Dec 30
This gallery contains 2 photos.
FROM HOTLINES FOR ILLEGALS TO NIKES AND PEPPER SPRAY: IT’S BUSINESS AS USUAL Obama Regime launches free hotline for suspected illegal aliens. Fear not, busted illegals – Barack Obama is coming to your rescue! Yes, el presidente – who famously fought off evil Republicans and their diabolical plans for moats full of alligators on your pathetic [...]
Dec 5
This gallery contains 2 photos.
DEMOCRATS ADD ‘PROGRESSIVE’ PROVISION TO DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL So, how did your Democratic Senator(s) vote on last week’s defense authorization bill – a bill which includes a provision that not only would repeal the military ban on sodomy, but would also repeal the ban on having sex with animals? Kinda gives Captain LGBT’s repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t [...]
Nov 11
This gallery contains 2 photos.
IT’S LOONEY TUNES FRIDAY, FOLKS; YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, DON’T YOU? The level of hypocrisy on display by the left in its concerted effort to destroy Herman Cain is absolutely incredible. These are the very people who so willingly cry “RACISM!” against conservatives over the most innocuous of non-racist issues, yet they stoop to a degree of shame reminiscent [...]
Nov 4
This gallery contains 10 photos.
A VERITABLE CORNUCOPIA OF LIBERAL NONSENSE FROM SOME OF OUR FAVORITE WINGNUTS It’s occasionally necessary to bounce around the internet and collect multiple stories on which to muse; otherwise, we run the risk of missing something of utmost “importance.” Liberals provide such a vast amount of material, we must stay all over it – lest [...]
Oct 31
This gallery contains 1 photo.
WHAT ELSE IS A MONARCH TO DO WHEN CONGRESS JUST WON’T LET HIM HAVE HIS WAY? “Yes we can!” No you couldn’t. ”Pass this bill!” No they didn’t. “We can’t wait!” Neither can we - for you and your sorry regime to move out of the White House in 14 months. While the boy king has mused multiple times about how much [...]
Oct 27
This gallery contains 2 photos.
OBAMA-SHILL GIBBS WETS HIS PANTS AS HYPOCRITE LAUER WHINES ABOUT ‘RICH PEOPLE’ Hypocrite-extraordinaire Matt Lauer is the latest liberal wingnut to get his panties in a bunch over “the rich getting richer.” In an interview with Obama-shill Robert Gibbs, the brass-balled Lauer, (whose $17 million annual salary is apparently not enough; he’s demanding $25 million to [...]
Oct 27
There are a lot of versions of this list to be found all over the internet. I have taken some of my favorites from these lists and put them together here. I personally think they are all funny, and that each of them contain a nugget of truth at their core. Some may read them [...]
Oct 18
This gallery contains 2 photos.
CAPTAIN TELEPROMPTER IS DEVASTATED AS YOU-KNOW-”WHO” IS STOLEN! I’m not sure whether this story would make a better dramatic, suspense-filled hour of intrigue, or a hilariously funny, slapstick comedy – but I’ll tell you what I do know; as much as I hate television, not only would I be glued to my TV to watch [...]
What Does Separation of Church & State Really Mean?
There is NO SUCH THING as the “Separation of Church & State”… read on..
Typical Conversational Style of Liberals
“And President Obama calls for a new ‘civility’ in the public discourse…”
The following videos display perfectly the general attitude and ‘debating’ style of most progressive liberals. Sniping, carping, aggression, sarcasm, violence, threats of bodily harm, hate filled eyes, name calling and shouting are only the beginning of their evil. Watch and be amazed…
Another Attack on Patriotism from the Rabid Left.
Florida Town Fines Woman for Too Many American Flags
The world is on fire. War is everywhere. Whole towns are disappearing into killer wind funnels across one third of our nation. The country is broke, the population divided. Terrorists want to tear down more buildings and domestic crime leaves blood on our sidewalks. We need our politicians to be working their butts off to guide our towns, cities, states and country through the minefields. Do liberals understand… continue reading..
Mar 21
This gallery contains 3 photos.
The minimum wage debate is an old favorite. Another very visible and clear line of disagreement between conservatives and liberals. There are those on one side that feel we should increase the minimum wage to a level that better represents a living wage. Other, myself included, feel that wages are best left to the negotiations [...]
Searchlight vs. L.A.: Rival Rallies Reveal Stark Right/Left Divide
Us: Smiling, literate, calm and focused, normal.
Them: Either glaring or hiding their faces, ignorant, all over the map. Freak show.
Not to mention there were ZERO arrests of TEA partiers.
YouTube – Newt Battles Rep Waxman (D) On Global Warming.
Senator Waxman: ”Mr. Gingrich, I am sure glad you’re not in charge of foreign policy. Do you think the only way to incentivize the country is by offering them more and more carrots. You have got to have some threat and sometimes you have to say incentivize you, we are going to give you some assistance, but there are going to be consequences.”
Mr. Gingrich: ” Mr. Chairman, I don’t think of American citizens the way I think of foreign dictators. And I don’t think this Congress should punish the American people. I think this Congress has every right to reward the American people, but I don’t think Lincoln’s government of the people, by the people, for the people should be turned into a government punishing the people..”
What a farce this whole Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill/Earth Day party testimony turned out to be. It seems as if the old “If you’re not with us you are against us” policy is being recycled by the liberal democrats for use on “climate change” policy. But getting the bill through the House in it’s current form will never happen. Dems are already hedging their bets.
Sorry if this is a repeat (I’m a ConClub newbie), but every American should see this, to understand what our Constitution is all about, in a nutshell.
H/T: Neanderpundit
Some of you folks wonder why I worry about an Obama presidency.
If Peggy Joseph is wrong, she’s going to be woefully regretful of her decision to vote for “The Messiah”.
And if she’s right and Obama CAN pay for her gas and mortgage, explain to me how the economy isn’t going to hell.
Do the math, people.
“Don’t think that a few years of liberals in charge is that dangerous? Just take a moment to consider what liberals dream of doing once they gain absolute power. There is no aspect of our lives—none—that today’s liberals concede is off limits to the meddling use of government power. In their vision there is no dividing line between the public sphere and the private sphere. Limited government is a concept that makes no sense to them… Energy policies are just the tip of the iceberg—although control over energy gives government control over pretty much the entire economy already. In a world run by liberals literally no aspect of our lives will be outside the legitimate regulation of government. That is because anything—even what temperature you like to keep your house—can be turned into a matter of legitimate public concern. Everything we do, including breathing, eating and of course procreating, can be argued to have an impact on those around us or the great mother earth. And if it affects others, it can and should be regulated by those who know best, at least according to the liberals. Liberals want to regulate just about everything: where we live, what fuels we use, what car we drive, whether we can drive or be forced to use government mass transit, where we send our kids to school, what doctor we see, and even to what extent we express our approval or disapproval of others’ lifestyles. It’s hard to find something liberals don’t want to regulate. Is that a world you want to live in?”
Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished!
In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”
What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, “You can’t eat your way out of being hungry!” “You can’t water your way out of drought!” “You can’t sleep your way out of tiredness!” “You can’t drink yourself out of dehydration!”
Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn’t going to increase the supply of oil?
It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan. Their plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race.
-Ann Coulter
I often rail about the hate-mongers on the left who base their policy support and opposition only on whether or not Bush is for or against it. Such hacks show no propensity to think outside of what the nutroot blogs tell them to think. So when Glenn Greenwald has a minor spat with Keith Olbermann over FISA, I am comforted by the fact that the savy Greenwald is at least a man of principle.
This episode doesn’t really originate with either Greenwald nor Olbermann. It actually centers around yet another Barack Obama flip-flop (shocker!). Apprently, after vehement opposition last year, Obama is now planning to vote for an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The update he supports will give telecoms immunity from prosecution if they cooperate with the government’s Terrorist Surveillance Program. Greenwald wrongly opposes such immunity and believes that lawsuits are an acceptable way to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citiznes. Olbermann also opposed such immunity going so far as to rant against it in one of his “Special Comments” last January. Greenwald details the rest:
In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immnity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.”
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.” Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration.
But as Greenwald notes, that was “five whole months ago.”
Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing — and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists — everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek‘s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:
Make no mistake about it; Olbermann, Alter and Obama are snakes. Obama will say or do anything to get elected. Alter is perfectly content to whore himself and his magazine out to the left and Olbermann doesn’t have a shred of credibility with his unhinged, hate-filled tirades against George Bush (You SIR!). But on this issue, they are correct. Greenwald, on the other hand, is a fringe left constitutionalist who recently wrote a book about manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP ignoring the stellar voting patterns of Democrats.
But on this issue, at least he is consistent. I encourage you to pick through the links and the replies by Olbermann on DailyKos. He only makes more of an ass of himself as he tries to defend his 180 degree turn.
“The big difference between Republicans and liberal Democrats is the way each party views people. Republicans see us as individuals and respect our God-given human dignity. To liberal Democrats, we’re not individuals; we’re members of a herd with all the dignity of a cow or pig dependent on its owner for daily rations of hay or slop. Democrats see us as being white or as blacks or as straights or as gays, or as lesbians or as heterosexuals, or as rich or poor, or as Christians or as Jews or as Muslims, or as young or as old, as working or as retired, or as housewives or as career women. They submerge us into pools that define us as members of groups instead of as what we are as God sees us—as any father sees his children—each being different from one another, and each child being a separate and distinct individual with his or her own specific talents and abilities, and all deserving of his love… This Marxist view of human nature embraces group-think, despises individuality, and seeks to eliminate all vestiges of the dignity to which every human being created in the image and likeness of God is entitled. Only the hopes and aspirations of the groups matter, and they matter solely because they create dependency on the state—which seeks to supplant God as the source of all that is good and necessary for survival.”
—Michael Reagan
In the previous post, Dave pointed out the true intentions of the modern day green movement. While environmentalism is a minor concern, the true intention of the watermelon left (green on the outside, red on the inside) is nothing less than socialist-style control over individuals, families, and businesses. Certainly the economic interests of the American nation-state are of no concern to them. And most assuredly, America’s national security is at the bottom of their wish list. To illustrate this, one needs to only look at the responses to two Supreme Court decisions regarding national security.
This morning, the Supreme Court refused to hear one case and review another case involving national security and worries over environmental issues. The Court refused to hear a case involving environmental attempts to halt construction of 700 miles of security fence along the southern border. Normally, the building of such a fence would require the multiple layers of slow, difficult environmental reviews that other public and private projects are forced to endure. Although I am not crazy about the government not following its own dictates, I think it is smart to charge on toward the construction of the wall. The environmental reviews are costly and time consuming and will do nothing but give time for millions of illegals to continue to pour through the open borderlands. The Sierra Club is up in arms over the construction. Oliver Bernstien, a spokesman for the group said, “This decision leaves one man — the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security — with the extraordinary power to ignore any and all of the laws designed to protect the American people, our lands, and our natural resources,” Of course only a rabid environmentalist would believe that a fence designed to protect the American people doesn’t meet its intended goal. But I’m sure his intentions are to protect the arid desert lands of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, right? Right? And Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson believes the use of the waiver authority will only spare the Homeland Security Department from addressing “the real issue: their lack of a comprehensive border security plan.” Hmmm. . . it seems to me that building a wall is squarely at the top of most peoples border security plan. Call me kooky.
In the case the Court agreed to review, a lower court stopped the navy from using a powerful sonar off of the coast of southern California. The sonar is apparently too strong and environmentalists fear it will hurt or disorient the poor whales and dolphins. I am sure that there is no proof of harm, but in the world of radical environmentalism, one only needs to speculate before that theory becomes gospel. After all, environmentalists are the only people in the world who can ring the siren of impending doom to the earth and have it met with anything but sneers or straight jackets. The Administration argued that claims of harm to aquatic wildlife were being exaggerated. This line of reasoning seems entirely plausible since entire careers have been made by exaggerating claims. Just ask Al Gore.
Both cases illustrate just how far removed from common sense we have wandered. The lands, resources, creatures and plants are all very nice and necessary in our free society. But if we entrust aquatic life to protect our national security, then it better have a big ‘A’ for a belt buckle and be able to command the force of thousands of animals to reap destruction on evil doers. Frankly, I would just prefer the goverment have the ability to detect sea-bourne danger and keep out those that don’t belong without having to use the bat signal or any other environmentally nefarious device.
“Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians—they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities—the Iranians.”
—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
New York Times Outs CIA Operative
In an astonishing stroke of irony, the New York Times has outed the name of the CIA operative who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, over the objections of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and a lawyer representing the operative.
Agency officials and legal counsel told the Times that publishing the agent’s name would “invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.”
In an Editor’s Note linked from the story on KSM’s interrogation, the Times defended its decision by stating that “other government employees” had been “named publicly in books and published articles” or had chosen to go public themselves, by explaining that its policy “is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely,” and by arguing the operative’s name “was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.”
Have you ever wondered how the modern day Maoist philosophies of ‘Multiculturalism, Diversity, Tolerance and Political Correctness’ originated and managed to gain such a foothold in our society? FrontPageMagazine provides a great window into the origins of ‘Diversity training’ and the rampant white guilt ideology it produced. Be sure to read the whole thing.
In diversity role-playing, whites are guilty until proven innocent – and of course, they will never get to prove it. Its role-playing exercises are far removed from experiments observing behavior in an authoritarian environment, a la Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo.[xiii] There, participation was voluntary, conducted under tightly controlled settings, and did not proceed from assumptions about collective guilt. By contrast, diversity training, Jane Elliott-style, requires that everyone participate and confess.
Jane Elliott’s vision is being realized. To say that the blue eyes/brown eyes exercise is “kid stuff” is true enough. But more to the point, its role-playing reduces adults to the level of children — fearful, whimpering and apologetic for nonexistent offenses. Far from combating white resentment of nonwhites, such “training” actually creates it. School multicultural programs, Thomas Sowell observes, has produced “mounting evidence of increasing (italics author’s) animosities among students of different backgrounds.”[xiv] Apparently, that’s also true in the adult world. In Britain, where Elliott is virtually lionized by multiculturalists, a former government diversity specialist explained the effects of diversity training:[xv]
You cannot over-estimate the damage to race relations that “diversity awareness” training is causing in this country. It’s having the opposite effect to that intended, causing divisions, resentment, and an increase in judgments based on race, where previously such things were actually quite rare. How do I know this? I was involved in putting together a diversity “toolkit” for a government department, and saw first-hand the effect it had as it was rammed down the throats of staff.
If Jane Elliott and her diversity minions are going to be defeated, more people like this, here and abroad, are going to have to speak out, and at whatever risk to their careers.
Is brought to you by moveon.org. What a bunch of nidgets and maroons. Good grief.
Barack Hussein Obama
A privileged African-American, who has not shared the black American experience
By birth, blood and training, a Muslim, who has been a member of a Black-African church for 20 years
A socialist whose politics are rooted in Marx and whose tactics were devised by Alinsky
A master at shaping his own mythology and completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief
More of that independent blogging/researching/campaigning/politicking that we’ve talked about and that the candidates and campaigns hate so much.
But at least he’s modest:
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” – Barack Obama
But sometimes it is hard to decipher when he is being honest (then or now):
In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.
“The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”
In Boston, a restaurant chain called Legal Sea Foods spent about $150,000 to decorate the sides of trolleys with advertisements featuring a funny fish. And I’m sure everyone finds the ads humorous. . . unless you are a union boob with nothing but an entitlement mentality and no sense of humor.
The wisecracking cartoon fish that recently appeared on the sides of Green Line trolleys have some lines that sound like they were ripped from a Henny Youngman routine: “Hey lady, I’ve seen smaller noses on a swordfish,” and, “This trolley gets around more than your sister.” Then there’s this side-splitter sure to leave ‘em laughing: “This conductor has a face like a halibut.” Ba-boom.
A lot of riders on the Green Line seem to think they’re a hoot. So does Roger Berkowitz, the chief executive of Legal Sea Foods, who shelled out $150,000 for the ad campaign featuring the “fresh” fish.
But the MBTA is not laughing. Neither are the hundreds of employees who work on the Green line. This week, after the trolley conductors union complained to T management, the agency’s top brass ordered the immediate removal of the “this conductor” ads, deeming them in poor taste.
“Waaah! They’re making fun of me!” Someone should tell the crybabies that advertising dollars help pay their wages and posh benefits.
Last Sunday, on a thread devoted to the way Chris Matthews grilled a historically ignorant right-wing talk show host, Andre made some embarrassing assertions of his own. In the comment section, Andre made this point in relation to Obama’s childish take on foreign policy:
Ok, in case they read our humble blog… “Appeasement” means giving up something to your enemies for temporary peace. “Diplomacy” means talking to them, without giving in. What do you think the traitor Dems will give up, Dave?
Annoyed with the simpleminded leftist blather, and probably in a piss poor mood, I fired back at Andre with two comments:
“What the f*** does Andre think diplomats do? They give in dummy! Diplomacy means you bend to the will of others in exchange for getting something in return.
So just what should we bend to the will of Iran for? Tell me Andre you frickin genius! What should we give to Iran that will make the world more peaceful? What should we bend to Hamas for in order to get something? I anxiously await your enlightened answer.”
And by the way Andre, your take on Reagans diplomacy is as big of a joke as the guy Matthews is grilling. Equivocating the Soviets with Iran or Iraq or Hamas shows how immature and devoid of integrity your worldview really is. Let me fill you in here. . . talking to the Soviets, a country that shared the world power structure with the U.S. is different than talking to those pissant fanaticals. Get it?
As if on cue, or spurred on by my wisdom, Charles Krauthammer then kicks out this editorial five days later. His point mirrors my own in that Obama and Andre/Wes are basically children in a grown ups world. In reference to Obama’s plan to meet with the worlds totalitarians and gangsters, Krauthammers says this:
After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.
And what does Krauthammer say about the nature of diplomacy? He simply parrots a refined version of my annoyed comment:
As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.
What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran’s nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?
On the topic of comparing diplomacy with Iran with that of the Soviets, Krauthammer is clear:
Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations — and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle — Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others “don’t pose a serious threat to us.” (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.)
The entire parallel Conclub-thread-turned-editorial comes full circle when Krauthammer exposes Obama’s utter lack of historical knowledge. **Coincidentally, when Matthews and Andre declared appeasement to be “giving” something to your enemies, they show their own unrefined knowledge of the Treaty of Versailles and the parameters Hitler broke that went unenforced.**
Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he’s seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.
Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin — and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?
Needless to say, there was never a reply to my comments. Aside from Dave, PG, and CK (Charles Krauthammer) piling on, liberal contributors and readers would rather not be bothered with facts that expose both their own and their candidates inept and dangerous foreign policy objectives. They would rather bitch about what a “disaster” President Bush’s foreign policy is.
I’m speechless. Twenty nine thousand dollars for this? Nero fiddled while Rome burned… and then he blamed the Christians for it. Western Civilization, what hath ye wrought? It’s an interesting concept but the kind of halfhearted attempts to flail away at ‘evil oil’ is a bit much. Are you complaining about high prices or that we have to have oil to get to work, bring food to the stores and heat our homes? Even she doesn’t really seem to know what point she’s trying to make, but she sure knows how to make it. Whatever that may be.
I was going to say something about this gal needing a hobby, but apparently she’s found it. How do these people get these jobs? Wrapper of abandoned building, UN Special Rapporteur. I need a cushy job like that. Blogger extraordinaire, planter of vegetables, typer of words, producer of children… and I’ll need lots of donations to keep me going as well. Somebody’s got to save the planet with your money. It might as well be me.
Artist Covers Old Gas Station with Huge Blanket
”I really tried to find a good balance of art and politics. I don’t want it to be just a political statement. And I don’t want it to just be a sculpture,” said the 27-year-old Marsh, who is finishing her master of fine arts degree at nearby Syracuse University.
”I wanted to startle people so they would stop and think about it (oil) … and be inspired to make up their own opinions about the situation and how it has affected their community,” she said.
With the help of professional and amateur artists from 15 countries and more than 2,500 grade-school students in 29 states, Marsh covered the 50-year-old former Citgo station — pumps, light stands, signs and all — with more than 3,000 fiber panels that are crocheted, knitted, quilted or stitched together.
”My teacher told us it’s about creating a caring community,” he said.
Or about creating an eyesore and gawdy tourist attraction. I wonder how many people drove their cars to go look at the big blankie attacking “oil”? Wait until you see what she did with her lawnmower.
View a vid and interview here.
My panel would have said:
My car runs on food. Oil sucks, but now I’m hungry.
It sure was nice of John Edwards to throw his hat back into the Democratic presidential ring when he could make a difference. Say what you want about John McCain but at least he has the guts to take stances that are risky, unpopular and move against the prevailing tide. Not Johnny boy though! With unwavering courage and desire for change, John Edwards waited until the race was over to jump to the side of the winner. Since he is little more than an empty suit – a political version of Ryan Seacrest – it really doesn’t matter. But it does demonstrate that Democrats will promise or do virtually anything to regain and maintain power. Needless to say, they have come a long way from JFK’s concept that “we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” For Edwards and others, they will “purchase at any price, not bother to be burdened, face none of the hardships, selectively choose their friends when it is convenient, and create foes where none exist to ensure the success of themselves.” Edwards is but one example.
Henry Waxman is a man of great courage. This ‘superest’ of superdelegates carefully weighed his options and when the winner became clear, he sided with the victor! Said Super Henry, “that has been one of the major reasons I have remained an uncommitted superdelegate. I wanted to make sure that Senator Clinton had every opportunity to bring her campaign to the American people. It is now clear, however, that the Democratic Party is nearing a broad consensus on our nominee. And it is with great pride that I endorse Senator Barack Obama for President.” Touching, Henry. It really is. Way to take a stand early on!
Former Democratic Party chirman Joe Andrew was courageous when, after North Carolina and Indiana, he switched his support over to Obama. Nothing like jumping ship when you have the chance. Andrews isn’t just a Clinton voter. He is a Clinton loyalist! Hell, with friends like him, who needs enemies?
Indiana Congressman Pete Visclosky endorsed Obama, saying in a statement: “America needs a President who offers a vision of the future comprised of sensible solutions to today’s troubles. My choice is Senator Barack Obama, who promises to seek pragmatic, progressive solutions to problems like jobs, Iraq, the energy crisis, and healthcare. Barack Obama will bring people together, give them hope, spur change, and set the U.S. back on a course toward progress, prosperity, and global leadership.” Somehow I don’t think that speech would have been any different if Hillary were the slight leader.
And when the superdelegate lead for Obama gets insurmountable, the Dems will make the “bold” step of deciding to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida. What courage! What leadership!
What a joke!
Instead of acting decisively, many Dems have engaged in a self-flagellating orgy of distinctions based upon soundbite friendly rationales like ‘the will of the people,’ that effectively achieved the same result but spared the consummate politicos the potentially unpleasant backlash of more direct and public expressions of supports. If anything, the whole affair has demonstrated an utter cowardice and spineless nature that speaks unsettlingly about the leadership of the Democratic Party. For us to entrust the Democrats to the highest seat of power in the world, shouldn’t they and their cronies be forced to demonstrate even the most minute ability to stand against a power greater than themselves?
As you all know I am a big fan of Amanda Marcotte over at Pandagon.net and never miss an opportunity to say a few nice things about her or in support of her most recent endeavor. She recently published a book and is now doing book readings at feminist bookstores. (Feminist bookstore? Is that kind of like an adult bookstore but less “interesting” and staffed only with stern, matronly, man-hating lesbians? I don’t know either, but it sounds weird and slightly creepy.)
Her latest contribution to the world is a book titled It’s a Jungle Out There and undoubtedly contains a few swipes at misogyny and patriarchy which, if you didn’t already know, are Miss Marcotte’s two favorite words in the whole wide world. No word if the Infidel Sage made it into her book, but I did my best. So here are some highlights of the disgraced, former Edward’s blogger reading some selections from her new book. The lesson to be learned here is that we should all write a book and hock it on our website. There is no way that it could be worse than hers. Don’t believe me? Then be sure to listen to the clip. I do have some bad news to report to you though, I am still banned from Pandagon. Darn it.
Uh, no thanks.
The political and social left’s ongoing romance with moral relativism is drearily familiar to us all. How many times have we been told there is no ultimate right or wrong, just shades of perspective? What’s anathema to one person may be the daily pit-stop to another. Of course, this is only true up to a point. The left is just as capable (if not moreso) of creating their own moral absolutes as their foes on the right. “Choice’ becomes an ultimate imperative over “Life”, for example.
Remember when Al Gore redefined the so-called “Climate Change” crisis as a “moral issue”. Considering that the science is tanking rapidly as the planet appears to be cooling instead of warming, this might have been the most expedient move for him, because it shifts the spotlight. The advantage of moral absolutes are – not only are they immune to mundane facts, but those who disagree with them can be tarred (not as dissenters) but as literally bad people. And, while it’s hard to get any traction in a free society for the idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to disagree with an Idea, it’s easy enough to argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to be immoral. The debate changes from “How can the planet be warming when temperatures haven’t budged in a decade and the oceans have actually cooled?” to “No, I am not morally equivalent to those villagers who lived outside Auschwitz because I don’t buy the Climate Change narrative.”
The Left has had a thorny relationship with science for a while now. The Beast alluded to it in an earlier post in which he pointed out that researchers have come up with findings inimical to many cherished Feminist beliefs. But there are others.
Genetic research on the origins of Man in North America suggests a European source for many Native American Populations. This confounds the narrative that American Indians came exclusively from Asia and Europeans are invaders.
Exposure to hormones in Utero changes behavior in children flies in the face of the idea that gender-based traits (boys like guns – girls like EZ Bake Ovens) is an artifical social construct.
And so on…
So how do we reconcile these problems? Enter “Science Studies”.
The Volokh Conspiracy reprints with permission an excerpt from a Professor Levitt, coauthor of the highly recommended Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. Professor Levitt criticizes the work of Palestinian Anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj, who published a book attempting to debunk Israeli Archaeological research into ancient Jewish communities in Israel. Obviously, if Jews never really lived in “Palestine”, then their claims to the territory are false. Levitt states:
My disquiet arises because I think Abu el Haj represents a pseudo-discipline that has gained some traction in universities despite its serious methodological and philosophical defects. The area is usually called “science studies” and its proponents can be found in anthropology and sociology departments, as well as in literary studies.
Abu el Haj tries to engage with archaeology on the basis of the assumptions and theories that are regnant in “science studies”, as her book plainly concedes.
These ideas are at the least heavily tinctured with what, for want of a better term, is usually called “postmodernism.” This incorporates the attitude that knowledge claims are, perforce, political claims, that “objective knowledge” is an oxymoron, and that modern science, in particular, is a repressive ideological edifice designed to bolster the hegemony of western capitalist patriarchal societies, not least by demeaning and displacing the “alternative ways of knowing” that are embedded in non-western cultures or are simply more appropriate to marginalized sub-populations (women for instance!)
Science isn’t really “science”. It’s politics and bias masquerading as truth – because we all know that there is no truth. Except our truth, of course.
The unifying theme of all these theorists is that the manifest content of scientific discoveries is not determined by the relevant physical facts of the universe but is “socially constructed” by some kind of murky alchemy that synthesizes the social and political interests of scientists into scientific theories.
Almost all scientists, as well as philosophers of science in the traditional sense, find this overarching theory of the nature of science to be highly unconvincing, to say the least. I cite some well-known critiques, to some of which I have contributed: “Levitt and Gross, “Higher Superstition,” Boghossian, “The Fear of Knowledge’, Haack, “Defending Science–Within Reason”, Sokal and Bricmont, “Fashionable Nonsense”, Koertge (ed.), “A House Built on Sand”, and Gross, Levitt and Lewis (ed.), “The Flight from Science and Reason.”
These critiques, however, have not dampened the enthusiasm of some would-be scholars, usually with blatant political motivations, to dedicate their academic careers to “science studies” in some context or other.
Not suprisingly, scientists disagree. One has to wonder what “Science Studies” acolytes think is happening when they flick a wall switch and an electric light goes on.
One clear advantage to this methodology, obviously, is that it gives its practitioners leave to dismiss scientific findings they find discomfiting without the necessity of developing significant scientific arguments against them. If science is a phantom constructed by a cabal with social interests opposed to yours, you have only to utter a few magic words from the science-studies canon and, poof!, the offending ideas go up in smoke.
In the grand ideological cathedral of leftist academe, all must serve the greater goal. Those Scientists whose work contradicts dogma must be brought to heel. “Moral relativism” served the left for decades as a tool to attack and replace the traditional moral structure of western society, so why not “Scientific Relativism”? They have their cake and they get to eat it too.
Obama takes superdelegate lead
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24556427/
That’s it now isn’t it? We can have a general election this year now?
I’m so confused
Even nature shows us that the improbable is possible…
Barack Obama: The hardest left major party presidential candidate in American history.
If elected, Obama will make Jimmy Carter seem like Truman. – Hugh Hewitt
Often it seems as though American higher education exists only to provide gag material for the outside world. The latest spectacle is an Ivy League professor threatening to sue her students because, she claims, their “anti-intellectualism” violated her civil rights.
Priya Venkatesan taught English at Dartmouth College. She maintains that some of her students were so unreceptive of “French narrative theory” that it amounted to a hostile working environment. She is also readying lawsuits against her superiors, who she says papered over the harassment, as well as a confessional exposé, which she promises will “name names.”
What were the student’s sins? They questioned some of her assertions in class!
Ms. Venkatesan lectured in freshman composition, intended to introduce undergraduates to the rigors of expository argument. “My students were very bully-ish, very aggressive, and very disrespectful,” she told Tyler Brace of the Dartmouth Review. “They’d argue with your ideas.” This caused “subversiveness,” a principle English professors usually favor.
Ms. Venkatesan’s scholarly specialty is “science studies,” which, as she wrote in a journal article last year, “teaches that scientific knowledge has suspect access to truth.” She continues: “Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct.”
Oh, the horrors!
After a winter of discontent, the snapping point came while Ms. Venkatesan was lecturing on “ecofeminism,” which holds, in part, that scientific advancements benefit the patriarchy but leave women out. One student took issue, and reasonably so – actually, empirically so. But “these weren’t thoughtful statements,” Ms. Venkatesan protests. “They were irrational.” The class thought otherwise. Following what she calls the student’s “diatribe,” several of his classmates applauded.
Ms. Venkatesan informed her pupils that their behavior was “fascist demagoguery.” Then, after consulting a physician about “intellectual distress,” she cancelled classes for a week. Thus the pending litigation.
Considering the fact that most teachers would be thrilled to have their students so engaged in a lecture that they ask questions, one must wonder what Ms. Venkatesan found so objectionable. Having taken a few literary theory classes himself, the Beast thinks he knows the problem.
Literary theory is crap. When one must teach crap, one gets a little defensive about challenges, because there is no good defense available. This is particularly galling for feminists.
But before we expand on that topic, let’s have a little look into recent history to see if we can find the root cause of Ms. Venkatesan’s case of the vapors.
Back in the 1980′s, feminists ran into a scientific wall. Their assertion that the genders were equal in all things (aside from certain surface physical abilities) began springing leaks when science departments on campus (who had originally been recruited to prove the truth of this) started collecting data that belied this article of feminist faith. Like a series of underground A-Bomb tests, the controversy rumbled below the surface for years. The controversy pitted geeky science profs against hairy-legged feminists (neither likely to get laid by the opposite sex) and became so toxic that womens studies departments even picketed their own science departments. But most of the battle was conducted in faculty meetings, with feminists flexing their political muscle to squelch research projects they now knew were likely to produce results inimical to their faith, or throw heretics out of the bunker (*Cough! Larry Summers!). But the truth eventually leaked out.
With some of their most fundamental assertions now proven irrational, academic feminists went for the only option available to them at the time: they rejected reason. Then they tried to reconcile it.
Witness the birth of “Feminist Science Studies“. Think of it as Gynocratic Creationism.
But there’s a problem. How to bring “Science Studies” out of the backwaters of the Women’s Studies swamp and movie it into the general campus. This is where French narrative theory (more widely known as “Crit Lit”) becomes useful.
Critical theory (literary criticism)
The second meaning of critical theory is that of theory used in literary criticism (“critical theory”) and in the analysis and understanding of literature. This is discussed in greater detail under literary theory. This form of critical theory is not necessarily oriented toward radical social change or even toward the analysis of society, but instead specializes on the analysis of texts and text-like phenomena. It originated among literary scholars and in the discipline of literature in the 1960s and 1970s, and has really only come into broad use since the 1980s, especially as theory used in literary studies became increasingly influenced by European philosophy and social theory and thereby became more “theoretical”.
This meaning of “critical theory” originated entirely within the humanities. There are works of literary critical theory that show no awareness of the sociological version of critical theory.
So what does this mean? It means that the unwitting student who signs up for this class (and it’s odd that they teach it at Dartmouth as freshman comp) will be given an anchor text and then made to interpret that text within the following guidelines:
DF
|
HLP |
P cont.QSV |
Essentially crit lit requires you to take a book, like, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and torture the text for insights into the Plight Of Women or The Plight of Africans, or The Plight of anybody else in the liberal pantheon. This is what Ms. Venkatesan apparently was attempting to do with her “Feminist Science Studies French Narrative” class – get it out of Women’s Studies and into the English Department. This is classic Academic Logrolling, and obviously the students didn’t buy it. Ms. Venkatesan – most likely unaccustomed to challenges and unequipped by the nature of her specialty for defending the indefensible – fell apart under scrutiny.
She has since fled Dartmouth in a snit for the presumably greener pastures of Northwestern. Good luck to them both!
To the brave operatives in Indiana and North Carolina, synchronise your watches and prepare to head to the polls. The DUmmies, KOmmies, and HUffies are nervous and threatening voter suppression and intimidation. Bravely melt into the crowds of the great unwashed masses and go cast your vote no matter what. The chaos must continue until the convention, and then we’ll turn the chaos over to Recreate-68 and the host of other tools and useful idiots (Troops Out Now Coalition!, United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Fighting Imperialism Standing Together etc.) that will turn the fine streets of Denver into a potentially violent circus. And Conclub will be hear to analyze and comment on it all.
Rush’s last direction to the troops on the eve of Tuesday’s primaries
I’m not giving her a pep talk. Snerdley thinks I’m giving her a pep talk. Have you forgotten who we’re dealing with here? We are dealing with the Clintons. This is the thing that she has lived for, it’s the reason she put up with all of that excrement daily being married to that lug head that she’s married to. This is the payoff. She’s going to say “Congratulations, Obama, you’ve run a really great race and I’m heading back to the kitchen to bake cookies.” Do you think that’s going to happen? You know they don’t quit. And with the Drive-By Media lining up all against them, that’s gonna fuel ‘em up even more.
Now Operation Chaos, and that mentality of attempting to sow destruction and mayhem into the Democratic primary process, has been controversial but successful. It has kept the bloody and tawdry race going and prevented the second coming of the Messiah complete with the palm waving MSM singing “Hosannas” as he prepared to enter the New Jerusalem on the East Coast. Without the continued animation of the Clinton campaign corpse all the slimy and unattractive Obama associations would not have been uncovered and Jeremiah Wright (honorific title withheld) would not be a household name.
Barack has been shaken and injured by the continued hard questions and undoubtedly wishes he could have that last debate washed from the public memory. There is now blood in the water and the sharks of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy smell it and are circling. Obama may grab the nomination and even the white house, but he is not the man he once was and we’ll have to see how much damage has been done not just to his campaign and image, but to the Democratic party in general. There is now great animosity between large segments of Obama’s and Clinton’s core supporters.
And that really is the goal here which I heartily endorse; to turn the blood sucking piranhas of the Democratic party on themselves in a orgy of disorder and political destruction. A wise man once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The GOP hopes that is indeed true.
Plus it is all fun to watch, incredibly entertaining, I desperately want to see a brokered convention, and it stokes the fire of the blogging machine. What more could you want?
“We’re going to try our hardest not to be violent“–Recreate68! leader Glenn Spagnuolo on plans for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Now yours truly is probably the most “take it to the streets” kind of activist of all the Conclub bloggers and I am considering making a trip up to Denver to be a part of the hysteria and mayhem of the Democratic National Convention. It may provide a great opportunity for some first hand accounts of the convention and perhaps a few good pics for the blog to boot. I have my trusty don’t tread on me flag protest flag that perhaps could be supplemented by a good “Socialists are Scum” or “The only choice is victory in the War on Terror” or “Death to Terrorists” sign if I can find my way in with a large enough group of right wingers to protest with (there is some safety in numbers).
I made the mistake of innocently wading into a large and angry crowd of Clinton/Gore supporters back in the early nineties as Gore made an appearance at a local airport following a bomb threat at a local high school where he had been scheduled to speak. I had several females with me. At the tail end as the crowd was beginning to break up I was surrounded by what was little more than an angry mob. The girls had their Bush (the first) for president signs ripped up and I was punched a couple times by one person in the crowd before he was restrained as well as being pushed around by several others. Luckily, there were several members of the local campus anarchist group on hand that formed up right behind me (I was friendly with one of their leaders) and “had my back” if things really got out of hand (I didn’t realize it at the time though, he described the scene and told me about it later). Rather scary but we made it out all right. I complained to a cop we finally found as we were finally leaving about the pathetic security and the Leftist lynch mob by the airstrip and he basically told me I asked for it by being there so that was that.
I also suffered an injured shoulder when I had an American flag and pole torn out of my hand at a support the troops rally at the state capitol a couple years ago by the occupant of a passing vehicle. So for me to go and get my butt kicked or tear gassed up in Denver would be about right and perfectly in character. My political “protest” kit does contain a Russian army surplus gas mask that I carry on my side to help reduce the chances of being incapacitated by mace or tear gas so I might be alright if Recreate68! turns into a Chicago police riot. I can’t say if I would really make it up there (can you imagine trying to find a parking space?) but you never know. It kind of sounds like fun and I would really hate to miss being a part of this historical event. It’s always fun to say “I was there”.
If they can’t even run their primary system, how do they expect us to trust them to run the country? I just hope he is smart enough, and savvy enough in regards to history, to not try to count each one as three-fifths of a delegate. That would be bad.
Howard Dean: Florida and Michigan Delegations Will Be Seated (well maybe, maybe not, he’s not sure)
Representative quotes:
STEWART: If I were designing a plan to submarine your chances, and again, you don’t have to follow my advice here, I would take the state that was, let’s say crucial to the Republican election chances — lets, let’s call it Florida — and I would find a way to insult them. Maybe not seat them at the convention, that sort of thing. Then I would pick a Rust Belt state, maybe a Michigan, and say to them the same. Now you’ve got two states that are angry with you. Do you think that would be a good way?
DEAN: Well, we’re actually going to seat them at the convention.
STEWART: What?! This is news! Are you really going to do that?
DEAN: We’re going to find a way to seat them at the convention.
START: Are you really going to?
DEAN: Yeah.
STEWART: How — how can you do that when their results don’t count?
DEAN: Well, it’s a little hard, but we’re gonna do it.
. . . .
It’s gonna be quite a juggling act, but we’re gonna do it. You cannot have a Democratic convention without Florida and Michigan.
Stewart also asked Dean why Michigan and Florida don’t have to follow the rules. Dean replied: “They do. That’s why they lost their delegates.”
I don’t get it either.
Finally, Dean argued that the Democrats’ system is “still more democratic than the [system used by the] Republicans” — you know, the system where the voters choose all the delegates. Stewart let him get away with that one.
Watch it all, if you can stand it.
From Hatemonger’s Quarterly:
Despite all our differences—black and white; young and old; Obama-supporting and sane—one thing binds us together: We all despise college students. And rightfully so, we must add. After all, is anything more annoying than the appalling illiteracy of these self-indulgent, lazy proto-drunkards? We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” collectively think not.
But there is one way you can get back at these obnoxious upper-middle-class acquaintance rapists. You can tease them ceaselessly by composing your own execrable verse in the style of inept collegiate balladry. That is to say, dear reader, you can write a poem in the pathetic manner of today’s self-important college student.
To aid you on your quest to get even with those pertinacious tyros, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” officially announce the fifth iteration of our popular (and infamous) contest: The “Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Horrible College-Student Poetry Competition.
What’s not to enjoy? So, dear reader, we formally implore you to send us a submission of some wretched verse, composed in the manner of the functionally illiterate college student. (To get a sense of what’s worked well in the past, check out previous winning entries here, here, here, and here.)
Now, you still may not have a good idea of the kind of pathetic pseudo-verse we exhort you to submit. As such, we have written our own poem, which we have pretentiously titled “We Are All Muslims Now.”
We Are All Muslims Now by the Crack Young Staff of THMQ
Amerika is the raping of Gitmo.
Amerika is the killing of brown people.
Amerika is the Wal-Mart of sexism.
Amerika is the lynching of freedom.But what Amerika—prostrate to the higher dollar—doesn’t realize is:
We Are All Muslims Now.
We are all al Qaida.
We are all Anne Frank.
We are all Heath Ledger.
We Are All Muslims Now.Pretty awful, is it not? Do you think you can do better? We collectively bet you can.
What do you say, ConClubbers? Anybody out there up to plumbing the poetic bottom? We got’s talent a-plenty!
Be very careful when encouraging those true, dyed in the wool, drinking the kool-aid, crawling over glass, environmental wacko types. They’ll will use anything to wage their little war on oil, the internal combustible engine, and the industrial state. And they are even managing to a leading car dealer to accept this garbage. Never mind that high gas prices already are squeezing the middle class, the independent trucker, and the American consumer and is downright catastrophic for the lower and fixed income classes. One shouldn’t have to be independently wealthy to own a motor vehicle, or to actually add a bit of fuel to it from time to time.
The Left claims to be “the compassionate ones” but when it comes to global warming and the threatened catastrophe of climate change they are glad to steamroll over everything and everybody in their quest to “save the planet”. Yet no proof exists that any effort made by any of us would make the slightest difference in the temperature rhythms of the climate. But we better make sure those greedy Americans are severely penalized for taking the family out to McD’s or over to Wal-Mart to buy their Chinese made shiny baubles and trinkets. This big brother approach and deep seated need to tax, shackle and otherwise oppress the American people and condemn their way of life is just the latest attempt at control and regulation of every aspect of your daily life. And this time it comes in a green colored package. How pretty! The watermelon (green on the outside and red on the inside) approach to punishing you for being an American by birth (or choice) continues unabated.
Should You Pay $6 Per Gallon?
Why higher prices makes economic sense
But America’s top car dealer says what we really need in this country is high gas prices—something in the neighborhood of $6 a gallon—if we ever really want to tackle the critical issues of the day: global warming and our oil addiction. “The biggest lie in America politics today is to say you care deeply about global warming and advocate for the price of gas to go down,” says Mike Jackson, CEO of the AutoNation car dealer chain. “Those are mutually exclusive concepts.”
It’s been an interesting week and a great one for crazy quotes:
Eco-Theology
”Almost four decades ago, a group of visionary Americans energized the environmental movement, and indeed our nation, by dedicating a day to this ideal: we must preserve God’s creation, our planet, for the generations to come… The Bible tells us in the Old Testament ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship.’ To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us. On this Earth Day, and every day, let us honor the earth and our future generations with a commitment to fight climate change.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
What does that have to do with the Constitution?
”We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” —Barack Obama
Obama playing “the race card” on the First Black President?
“I think that [the Obama campaign] played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along… I don’t think I should take any s**t from anybody on that, do you?” —Bill Clinton
The Perpetual Candidate
“[Hillary's win in Pennsylvania] is great news. For Sen. John McCain. She’s never getting out. Hillary will not leave the race tonight. She will not leave the race before the convention in August. She may not leave the race ever.” —Rich Galen
Pennsylvania Primary Results: Latest News, Spin
They also seem to be a bit “touchy” about Hillary’s bin Laden ad that she ran as a last ditch regurgitation of her Texas 3 a.m. ad. Both appeared to have resonated with the bitter vote and kept the ‘wack-a-mole’ alive to fight another day.
Poor Barry. He now has to endure the shame of having the support of Michael Moore. Unfortunately, our Pennsylvania friend Dana went to the polls today and pulled the lever for Obama. Based on the endorsements he has received, one has to wonder whether there is a totalitarian, Communist, or separatist alive that hasn’t endorsed Obama? And as much as it pains a person to vote for Hillary, it is necessary for Americans to know just what a toothless, quivering, spineless administration Obama will have. Which is naturally why these kooks want him to win! But hey, as long as Obama is leading a “movement,” everything will be fine, right?
”What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change,” Moore writes. ”My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.”
Has anyone considered the fact that the “movement” is probably a massive bowel movement?
“I have not read the news, watched the news, or read a blog for 48 hours, and it is kind of great. Hell, I have not even checked memeorandum to discover the latest ginned-up outrage of the week. The 98% of the world who don’t read blogs may be on to something.” -John Cole
Amen. This really is the silly season (on both sides).
Setting the record straight. We have indeed heard several players in this election bringing up the dreaded accusation of ‘swiftboating’ and I’m happy to see Henry P. Wickham Jr. doing a fine job setting the record straight and ‘reclaiming’ the word from those who would seek to tarnish and degrade it.
Redefining ‘Swiftboating’ and Rewriting History
If the words “swift” and “boat” must be combined and turned into a verb, then let us insist on its proper use. The word as a verb originates from the campaign undertaken in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans in response to the John Kerry presidential candidacy. The word means, or should mean, the exposure of a fraudulent autobiography of one seeking political office or public influence. It is the correction of a personal and professional record that has been selectively and dishonestly compiled, as the Swift Vets did so effectively to that of John Kerry.
After a day sulking in my basement being bitter, reading the Bible, cursing immigrants and cleaning my guns, I thought I’d take a peek outside and see how the ugly street fight in the Democratic party was progressing today. Here are my findings:
The Civil War continues unabated in the Democratic party. Last night’s ‘bitter’ debate between the dark lords of chaos didn’t help at all. Dean is screaming I need a decision now! Don’t miss the sniping of the faithful in the comment section. It’s funny to watch them all referring to “Obamanits”, “Hilbots”, and “Sillary”. There are the occasional calls for unity, but a lot of bitterness is building throughout the Democratic party.
And the sudden disappearance of the puffball media when it comes to Obama the (formerly) untouchable is interesting as well. Some are decrying the guilt by association tactics while others are smearing George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson as pandering yellow journalists. The host of criticsms directed at ABC by the Obama ‘fringe’ continues well into the night and there is some complaining that Hillary could’ve told them that ‘enough is enough’ and to quit beating up on poor little Barry. How dare they ask a tough question or expect Barack Obama to answer the allegations and various gaffes he has made along the way. Shouldn’t they just be bashing Bush or something? How dare they fail to bow before the golden calf. There is even an argument, and video, about whether Obama recently gave Hillary ‘the finger’. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s hilarious and the blood, and the bitterness, continues to flow unclotted and untreated.
It’s just too much and far to funny for us on the Right. Can someone please bring back Ferraro for another round? Or maybe she can have a joint appearance with Wright. That would be fun to watch. It’s far to easy to be a blogger these days.
The more I poke around the old world wide web and watch the various news outlets, the more I am fascinated by the depth and strength of the reaction to the latest Obamaism. His Teflon armor is starting to wear thin and this latest debacle appearing right before the Pennsylvania primary was a serious blow. Will it be the ‘Dean Scream’ of the Obama campaign or just another bump in the long road to the presidency? Read more about this subject and many various blogger’s thoughts on this incident and Obama’s attempts to stop the bleeding at: The Big O’ Apology.
Allah’s take on the situation is superb:
All this really is, of course, is a variation on the Lefts refrain about the “politics of fear,” in which any issue that might conceivably benefit a conservative opponent — immigration, “values,” and above all terrorism — is waved away as a stumbling block to progress contrived by The Man to keep the People down.
And Newt’s even better:
If you go to the most expensive private school in Hawaii and then move on to Columbia University and Harvard Law School, you may not understand normal Americans. Their beliefs are so alien to your leftwing viewpoint that you have to seek some psychological explanation for what seem to be weird ideas.
They can’t really believe in the right to bear arms.
They can’t really believe in traditional marriage.
They can’t really believe in their faith in God.
They can’t really want to enforce the law on immigration.
Therefore, they must be “bitter” and “frustrated.”
This is the closest Senator Obama has come to openly sharing his wife’s view that “America is a mean country”. Not since Governor Dukakis have we seen anyone so out of touch with normal Americans. It makes perfect sense that it was in a fundraiser in San Francisco that he would have shared the views he has so carefully kept hidden for the entire campaign.
My man Barack (who’ve I have now officially endorsed as the next Democratic presidential nominee) better get his act together quick. If he comes limping into the Denver convention in August with a knapsack full of ‘scandals of week’, the party bosses will think twice about his coronation. They’ll be wondering what other revelations or faux paus lie just below the surface of the smooth-talking wonder kid from Chicago. Hillary is deeply flawed, and they know that, but her flaws are well known and how many more skeletons can possibly be in her closet? The floor is covered with them and they are bursting out of every nook and cranny, but they are old and moldy ones, not the bright, shiny and new cadavars Obama has stuck behind his wife’s clutter in the walk-in. Do you go with the Hillary you know, or the untried new guy with the crazy pastor and apparently serious and spreading case of foot in the mouth disease? I’d hate to be the kingmaker who’s got to make that call.
A number of progressives have mentioned to me how fantastically fashionable European governments are. This post is fascinating on so many levels…
Several pieces today tie together to forma disturbing mosaic. The first two are the growing threat of radical Islam in Great Britain and the penetration of the structures of several elite universities there.
The second is the new report by the NEFA Foundation on the Muslim Brotherhood structure in Belgium.
The most disturbing to me is a report that Britain’s Home Secretary Jaqui Smith believes the police are being overwhelmed by the growing threat of radical Islam in Britain.
“There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots,” she said.
So the UK liberal Labour Party see this growing threat in spite of multiculturalism and without the fear mongering that said enlightened cultural relativity prevents? Wow! Not only does the oh so trendy socialist Home Secretary realize there is a threat, she has some suggestions on how to handle it…
And she warned the menace of Islamic fanatics is mounting so fast that police will be unable to cope within a year—unless they are given new powers to lock up terror suspects for longer.
At present cops can hold suspects for up to 28 days, but the Home Office wants that increased to 42 days.
“We can’t wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers,” said Mrs Smith. “We have got to stay ahead.”
“Because we now understand the scale of what is being plotted, the police have to step in earlier—which means they need more time to put evidence together.”
So like tell me what Bush is doing again? Hey I know it is their delusion – BDS – so it is not nice to demand logic, but please explain it to me!
The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of “God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag” while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet.
Jim Webb, 2006
I don’t expect any of the usual suspects to stand up for him. But note that at least Obama’s comments taken at their worst possible meaning ascribe individualism and free will to its subject. These comments, by someone who is hardly out of touch with small-town America or full of contempt, speak of them as being easily swayed.
Which is to say, Obama, by saying “cling”, implied that it was a choice. Not even an ignorant choice, just a choice of what to prioritize. He dismissed those choices, sure. Why wouldn’t he, considering he doesn’t agree with most of them? But he called these priorities a choice that they made, not just a position someone told them to take because they were too dumb to know any better. Which is far less dismissive than the way most conservatives refer to Obama’s own supporters on a daily basis.
BLATANTLY PANDERING UPDATE: Welcome to ConClub Freepers! Feel free to browse around while you’re here.
It appears that Katie Couric is on her way out at CBS News. This should come as no surprise to anybody – except perhaps the Suits at CBS News, who chose her to replace Dan Rather in the first place. Everybody but them knew Katie would not last, so the question shouldn’t be “Why did she fail?” but “Why did they make such a bone-headed decision?”. This is particularly important because now they have to choose someone to replace her and they need to make a better pick, which means they need to know what they did wrong the first time so they don’t make the same mistake again.
So here goes.
In the aftermath of Rathergate, the suits at CBS were given a valuable lesson and an opportunity. They squandered both. Ten weeks before a presidential election, Rather, a lifelong liberal, headed a hit piece on President Bush based on very iffy sources and documents later proven fake. CBS News made a very rookie mistake which left many in the industry scratching their heads. Where was the basic skepticism that any “A” level news organization should show towards their sources? The defense that “These documents have not been proven false so we stand behind them” was demonstrably silly. Was it CBS policy to believe all printed material as true until proven false? Or was it that damaging material aimed at the G.O.P. enjoyed a lower level of required proof?
Either way, the story forced Rather out of his anchor seat and gave CBS a big media-bias black eye. Now the question facing the Suits was – “how do we fix this and with whom do we replace Dan?”. Read the rest of this entry
I’ve said before that there is something delicious about two nefarious ideologies wreaking havoc on each other. This would appear to be the case of the Communist Chinese and the leftist greens. Its like watching the Patriots play the Raiders. Who do you root for?
Outside, a few French activists supporting Tibet had a fist-fight with pro-Chinese demonstrators. The French activists spat on them and shouted, “Fascists!”
In San Francisco, where the torch is due to arrive Wednesday, three protesters wearing harnesses and helmets climbed up the Golden Gate Bridge and tied the Tibetan flag and two banners to its cables. The banners read “One World One Dream. Free Tibet” and “Free Tibet.” They later climbed down.
I can think of nothing more unsavory than liberal green fascists that want to control the lives of everyone. Except liberal red commies that want to control the lives of everyone. Sigh. Who is a red-state conservative to pull for?
So it appears we may not have seen the last of Al Gore.
This article is reposted here in full:
WALLINGFORD, Pa. — Democrat Barack Obama says as president he would consider putting Al Gore in a Cabinet-level position _ or higher.
A woman at a town hall asked the Illinois senator if elected president would he consider tapping the former vice president for his Cabinet, or an even higher level office, to address global warming.
“I would,” Obama said. “Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He’s somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I’m already consulting with him in terms of these issues but climate change is real.”
Gore, who’s work on climate change earned him a Nobel Prize, he is popular among Democrats.
Higher level than cabinet? Supreme Court? VP again? Perhaps an all powerful Czar of Climate Change or actually officially ordaining him as the High Priest of Global Warming? What a disaster that would be for the economy and the American way of life.
Please, I pray to you oh Saint Obama, intercede for us poor and ignorant consumers of manufactured goods and carbon based fuels. Don’t let Gore anywhere near the center of power. I beg of thee. Amen.
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
There is nothing worse than the self-annointed saviors of the various leftist ideologies tell the masses one thing while living the opposite. We were treated to such hypocrisy last year when it was revealed that Al Gore’s mansion consumed as much energy in a month as the homes of average Americans in a year. But at least Gore retro-fitted his home with enough solar energy to make the compound self-sufficient. I wonder how Jeremiah Wright can retro-fit his hypocrisy?
The concept of practicing what you preach is apparently lost on Wright.
After decades of lecturing blacks to remain loyal to the black ghetto and eschew the white suburbs, he’s now building a 10,340-square-foot mansion in the white suburbs. Among its amenities: an elevator, a rubberized exercise room and room for a future theater and indoor swimming pool.
Wright has made a lucrative career of convincing other blacks they can’t succeed on their own. For decades, he’s collected their alms in exchange for a steady diet of bitterness and resentment.
Shouting “God damn America” for its treatment of blacks, Wright got his parishioners hooked on misplaced anger in the South Side so he could cash out in Tinley Park.
Perhaps this is “sharing in the prosperity,” as Obama has so eloquently rephrased redistribution of income. Funny how those who demand economic parity end up taking the biggest share.
Somehow I doubt we will see Wright retro-fitting Tinley Park with his South Side bretheren. I also doubt that the Marxist rhetoric of Black Liberation Theology still applies when you reach the gated community or the #1 tee box at the country club. Convenient.
In the most thorough and frightening thesis on a possible President Obama foreign policy that I have seen to date, Conclubs own PG outlined the people that Obama counts on among his advisors and the implications of his (imminent?) presidency.
As the campaign continues, I predict that bloggers and media will unearth a massive amount of information that lends credence to PG’s thoughtful post. And here is just another example. This is from the pastors notes from a Trinity bulletin last year. In it, Wright proclaims that the Israelies worked on an “ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs” [sic].
Aside from the “ethnic bomb” moonbattery, there is so much that is wrong with this bulletin. PG discussed the anti-Israel stance of Wright and possibly Obama in this way:
It is important to note that these Marxist-socialist views have influenced Senator Obama’s outlook. To believe they have not stretches credulity. He has a close twenty year association with Jeremiah Wright Junior whose church is based on Black Liberation Theology. Reverend Wright has an interesting take on Israel too…
The utter contempt of history by Wright defies all credulity. The idea that “Mary delivered her beautiful Palestinian baby” is laughable considering there were no such things as Palestinians until after WWI. The idea that the Jordan River is polluted solely by the activities of the Israelies is humorous when you consider the country of Jordan shares the river as both a water source and border. One would also have to have a herculian imagination to believe that Libya’s support of Nelson Mandela earned it a designation as a terrorist state. Forget about those airliners exploding in mid air, it was because we loved the Apartheid state so much that we put Libya on a terror list. The icing on the cake is that it was “an honor” to be designated as a rogue terror state. An honor! Never forget that this is the spiritual advisor to the person who has a better than even chance of being our next President!
Mrs. Clinton dodging bullets on a Bosnian tarmac
In case you didn’t know, we have just learned that the former first lady had a close call during a trip to Bosnia in the nineties. She “remembers landing under fire…we had to lower our heads and run for the cars…”. More alarming is the fact that not only was her life apparently in danger, but she had Chelsea with her as well. How brave and courageous for her to have put her life on the line in an active warzone to help bring peace to an oppressed people. Fortunately for her, a CBS report includes the footage of this traumatic and heroic action.
Thank goodness Hillary stands on that wall. We need her on that wall. God bless America.
Mrs. Clinton has now accused her critics of ‘swiftboating’ her in regards to her claim of coming under fire by Serbian snipers. I can only assume that the term ‘swiftboating’ is defined as ‘pointing out the truth in response to a Democratic candidates dubious claim’.
How Hillary Clinton remembers it:
Step #1: “Examine and come to terms with your own personal prejudices.”Feminist scholar Peggy McIntosh had no idea she was a bigot until she was forced to take an honest look at herself. In school, she received “no training in seeing [herself] as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture.” The diversity training team knows that you are probably guilty of similar charges, so before the training begins, you must first recognize yourself as the “participant in a damaged culture” that you truly are.
A few years ago I authored The Institutionalsim of Liberalism which also addressed many of these same issues and official attempts at indoctrination on college campuses.
It is no exaggeration to state that college campuses exist in their own strange little world where right is wrong, perversity is praised, socialism is promoted, immorality celebrated, dissent stifled, traditional values mocked, Christianity ridiculed, patriotism abhorred and the foundations of our culture and society dismantled. It is sometimes subtle and sometimes blatant but the drumbeat of this philosophy is constant, pervasive and ever present.
“The Democratic party is very close to being the [Communist-controlled Progressive] party of Henry Wallace… Today’s left sees the world pretty much in the same terms as the Stalinists did. What has happened is that it has lost its faith in the working class, so its agenda is entirely negative. They’ve dropped the dictatorship of the proletariat and they all say they’re democrats, but so did Lenin. The vast bulk of the American left is a Communist left and they’ve introduced some fascist ideas like ‘identity politics,’ which is straight out of Mussolini. They don’t talk about the working class, they talk about women and race. There’s not much that they’ve learned from the history of the 20th century.”
—David Horowitz
Student suspended for skittles is cleared
The New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy, school spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo said.
“Wellness”, yet another code word for the fascist nanny state. I’d demand my bag of skittles back as well. This is kind of funny to read since I used to be one of several competing ’candy pushers’ in my high school for some time.
Meanwhile, gay porn is required reading in an Ill. high school. So let me get this straight. Skittles bad, gay porn good. Got it.
The Democratic party is swiftly turning into the Jerry Springer Party. The Democratic presidential contest is about one degree away from bleeped out tirades and security guards tackling the guests amid the biting, scratching and name-calling. The DU’ers are at each other’s throats.
JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!
Even though the resignation of New York Governor Eliot “Backdoor” Spitzer is the story of the day, the recent comments of infamous womanyst, and the first female VP candidate for a major US political party, Geraldine Ferraro are worth quoting here. The followers of the various victimhood factions of the Dems have decided to start leveling the same charges and insinuations at each other that they usually reserve for those evil Republicans. It is also interesting to see the sharp blades of political correctness being turned on their usual wielders.
ARTHUR: Well, I am King!
DENNIS: Oh, King, eh, very nice. And how d’you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By ‘anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s ever going to be any progress with the-
WOMAN: Dennis, there’s some lovely filth down here. Oh! How d’you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who’s castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes–
WOMAN: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That’s what it’s all about. If only people would hear of—
Monty Python and the Holy Grail, scene three
I truly love scene three. It shows that words matter, how we frame our political discourse matters. When we allow words to become less than precise, to become fungible, we risk our liberty. Recently this quote was brought to my attention…
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” —Norman Thomas-
On a previous thread there seems to have been some confusion over just what a socialist is. I was accused of being one I guess. You can be the judge; here is the remark…
And PG, for the last time, I am not a socialist!! My views on what the government should and shouldn’t do in people’s personal lives are likely to be more libertarian than yours. If you support government dictating reproductive rights, the ability to spy on its citizens and locking up drug users, I’ve already won on that count. Socialists would agree with all those points.
Now what he was alluding to I really can’t say. Abortion and drug legalization have nothing to do with socialism. It is hard to have a meaningful discussion when broad concepts are not understood. The point about me is off topic and asinine, and I am not a Libertarian anyway. Besides what I am does not define another. I had mentioned this in that same thread but apparently it was missed.
My friend seems to be confusing a government’s treatment of its people’s civil rights with socialism. While not an uncommon view regarding socialism it is an unaware view. Socialism is not defined by its interference into the personal lives of its citizens.
Here is a definition of socialism to start us off in a quest for a common political nomenclature.
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. Read the rest of this entry
CHERRY PICKING THEOLOGY
”If people find [same-sex unions] controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” —Barack Obama (Presidential candidate and theologian extraordinare)
CHERRY PICKING VICTORY
“We’re going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don’t talk about Afghanistan enough. We’ve got two wars. We’ve got to end one, we’ve got to win the other.” —Hillary Clinton
Well it is like, well like those rich Jews would just have to deal with it ya know…
Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer
asked her this question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Power gave an astonishing answer:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention…. Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
Things are going south to the south of us. This country is getting set to elect a perceived weakling and we have events like these shaping up.
Colombia: Chavez funding FARC rebels
Venezuela vowed to expel Colombia’s ambassador and Ecuador completely broke diplomatic ties on Monday, two days after Colombian commandos killed a guerrilla leader and several rebels in a cross-border incursion into Ecuador.
Colombia’s police chief, meanwhile, said documents found on a laptop computer seized in the raid offered evidence that the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador provided political and financial support to Colombia’s largest guerrilla group.
The Colombian commando raid on Saturday that killed rebel leader Raul Reyes infuriated Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and his ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Chavez has called Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe a “mob boss” and a “liar.” Both countries have mobilized troops toward their borders with Colombia.
“The government of Ecuador has decided to break off diplomatic relations with the government of Colombia starting today,” a statement from Ecuador’s foreign ministry said.
Later, the Venezuelan foreign ministry announced its decision, saying it was acting “in defense of the sovereignty of the fatherland and the dignity of the Venezuelan people.”
It said the government “has decided to order the immediate expulsion … of the ambassador of the Republic of Colombia in Venezuela, and the diplomatic personnel of the Colombian Embassy in Caracas.”
Hey no worries, anybody who is willing to support FARC is A-OK to talk with in my book. Talking with fascists has always worked before, why should this be any different? Change, change, change! Yes we can!
“The goal of the ‘liberals’ —as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli.”
—Ayn Rand
Don’t miss this. Orwellian in nature and the editing is brilliant.
(CNN) — Barack Obama’s campaign accused Hillary Clinton’s team Monday of circulating a photo of the Illinois senator donning traditional attire – clothing worn by area Muslims – as a goodwill gesture during an overseas trip.
In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial.
The picture, which appeared on the Drudge Report this morning, was attributed to sources within the Clinton campaign – although the Web site did not reveal how many, or who, might have received the photo.
I saw this on Sunday night, but I suspected it might have been photoshopped or otherwise not genuine. It turns out to be an authentic and unaltered picture of Obama in Kenya during 2006, and both camps of the Democratic contenders have erupted in a wild circus of accusations and finger pointing because of it. Most of us are actually surprised it took Mrs. Clinton this long to ‘go dirty’ though I suspect that we expected her anticipated ‘dirty’ campaign to be slightly more sophisticated than this. Either way, this is ‘good stuff’ and an interesting view into American politics.
![[Hillary Clinton]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GK060_Clinto_20070524174444.gif)
She’s down, but is she out?
“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. Shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign that is consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you.”
- Hillary Clinton (source)
Kathleen Parker scrutinizes the hysterical emotionalism of the Obama campaign
Those are some kind of campaign promises. The kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope—and hope, he’ll tell you, knows no limits.
It is thus no surprise that the young are enamored of Obama. He’s a rock star. A telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him.
But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent—hence thousands of years of religion—but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.
Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, the sports club is the new church. Global warming is the new religion. Vegetarianism is the new sacrament. Hooking up, the new prayer. Talk therapy, the new witnessing. Tattooing and piercing, the new sacred symbols and rituals.
And apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.
Here’s how a 20-year-old woman in Seattle described that Obama feeling: “When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa…”
This New Age glossolalia may be more sonorous than the guttural emanations from the revival tent, but the emotion is the same. It’s all religion by any other name.
This entire article is worth the read, and I didn’t even excerpt the best part (that’s the fourth paragraph). This entire thing is starting to remind me of the Deaniacs, except this year we didn’t get ‘a scream’. We did get a ‘nose blow’ to applause, but that wasn’t quite as much the same.
And do not miss the opportunity to visit Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
Good Grief.
When backing Barack feels like joining a cult
Suddenly, the impossible is real.
Suddenly, I’m nervous. Very nervous, actually.
I’m nervous because an otherwise normal grownup told me yesterday she’s watched the will.i.am (Black Eyed Peas) “Yes We Can” Obama video about 100 times and gets “weepy” every time.
I’m nervous because a longtime political type, normally quite cynical, now waxes rhapsodic about Obama’s “cool.”
“He’s elegant, controlled, the best-dressed candidate ever,” he says. Never a red tie, yellow or bright blue. No, Obama does a subdued lean charcoal gray suit with a gray or silvery tie. Everything muted, measured, fluid. “He floats onto the stage, a bit of the Fred Astaire thing going.” Read the rest of this entry
I know that Jeff and others here think Barack is the figurehead for a larger political movement but this is just stupid. This is the type of stuff one expects at a Hannah Montana concert. And yet these are grown ups that vote and want their guy to rule the world:
It’s probably safe to say that you have arrived as a politician when your audience applauds when you blow your nose.
Yes, just a day before a debate in Texas, Sen. Barack Obama has a head cold.
And about a half-hour into a speech here, the Illinois Democrat announced that he had to take a quick break. “Gotta blow my nose here for a second,” Obama said.
Out came a Kleenex (or perhaps it was a hankie), and he wiped his nose.
The near-capacity audience at the Reunion Arena, which his campaign said totaled 17,000, broke out in a slightly awkward applause.
It is not a question of winning really. Just get out of the Liberals way and they will do the rest. Step back because here comes The New York Times!
Limbaugh and other conservative commentators rushed to defend McCain on Thursday against a potentially damaging article in The New York Times, embracing a maverick they have often attacked.
The lamestream media is certainly awash in negative news about the President but when good things happen, the negative spin never ceases. This is the case with the Presidents trip to Africa.
We have heard the incessant cries over the past six years about how the world hates us. And over the past 2 years, we hear about how low the President’s approval rating is, what a failure he is, and how we need “change.” So what is the reaction when an Irishman comes to the defense of the President to extoll his virtues? The news is nowhere to be found. You have to go to the conservative Investors Business Daily to get the story. What a sham!
Bill Clinton might have been America’s first black president, but it seems he didn’t do as much for Africa as Bush has. Bob Geldof, Irish rocker and Africa activist, says the Texas oilman, who is wrapping up his second trip to the continent, “has done more than any other president so far.”
That’s high praise from Geldof, a man who has spent much of the last 20 years fixated on Africa’s many problems. He sees Bush’s efforts to fight disease and poverty in Africa as “the triumph of American policy.” Though he says it was “unexpected of the man,” Geldof admits both the president and the nation “rose to the occasion.”
Geldof rightly chastises the American media for ignoring Bush’s contributions to Africa.
But it would be unrealistic to have expected otherwise. This is a national press corps that seems to notice homelessness and poverty only when a Republican is in the White House, and which itself votes heavily Democratic.
So how does our media trumpet the fact that under Bush, African humanitarian spending is over 3 times as much per year ($4 billion compared with Clintons $1.4 billion)? Make the President deny that we seek bases for Africa, of course! Oh, and mention oil, since that has been the hook for the left over the last seven years.
Several African countries, including Libya, Nigeria and South Africa, have expressed deep reservations, fearing the plan signals an unwanted expansion of American power on the continent or is a cover for protecting Africa’s vast oil resources on the United States’ behalf.
So lets get this straight; spending in Africa is through the roof, spending on education is as high as its ever been, taxes are low, terror hasn’t reached our shores in over six years, and Bush wants third world immigrants to be granted working visas to come and go as they please (a position I disagree with). And leftists in this nation think that Bush is the spawn of Satan?
I can’t wait until a President Obama makes these fools confront their own childish and sophomoric worldviews with sobriety.
“Usually supported by Student Life and Housing departments as well as student-led groups concerned about race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and sexuality, the Tunnel of Oppression is an interactive exhibit in which student actors, films, and recordings are used to expose participants to a variety of abusive situations,” Rebecca Barrett-Fox writes in Radical Teacher. “These range from scenes of suicide to an interracial set of friends being rejected from a restaurant.”
“Often, the skits get distilled to screaming profanities at the audience or in other ways, subjecting them to the abuse that has been heaped upon members of non-dominant cultures in America.” Barrett-Fox teaches at the University of Kansas, which partakes of these dormitory activities.
Radical Teacher is “a socialist, feminist and anti-racist journal of the theory and practice of teaching. “In one scene suggested by the Kansas how-to instructions, a student guide leads participants into a shower stall area, then slams the paper towel holder to simulate the slamming of a door,” Barrett-Fox recounts. “The room is filled with dry ice as the hissing of gas is heard in an effort to create the sensation of a Nazi gas chamber.”
“In some Tunnels, participants are handcuffed to recreate the experience of slavery, or racial epithets are hurled at audience members in order for them to identify with victims of racism.” Apparently, it never occurred to the geniuses who put these “tunnels” together to urge students to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reichby William Shirer, Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe or much of anything else. Such an alternative might be particularly useful at a time when students at elite colleges and universities cannot say when the Civil War was fought with any degree of precision. Picking the side the United States fought on in the Second World War seems to be another brain twister for underclassmen at these schools.
Nevertheless, diversicrats are hell-bent on shepherding collegiates into oppressive tunnels. “The majority of participants do not share insights,” Barrett-Fox reports. “Those who did offered only a few sentences expressing surprise at the kinds of oppression they had witnessed, saying, for example, that they had not considered bulimia linked to the oppression of women, a comment consistent with student evaluations of the program.”
The assault on good taste, common sense, and proper understanding of real life continues unabated on our campuses of higher indoctrination. While the overwhelming need to saddle the next generation with a vague guilt of all past offenses to ”non-dominant” groups (i.e. everyone but white males) seems a little sick and twisted, it is the standard fare for those who are now entrusted with higher education. The Left lives in a netherworld of oddity, guilt, and childish antics.
A reader at FreeRepublic noted that they should add the following: “In one tunnel, participants are chained to a desk in a cubicle for 9 hours a day, to experience the suffering of those that pay their bills and keep the economy moving”. Now that would be scary and oppressive.
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
|
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
||||
|
|
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
I must humbly disagree with Andre on this one. There is no unusual Right wing feeling towards Hillary ‘the self anointed one’ Clinton at all.
In reality, those of us on the Right are not very happy that the Left is starting to take notice of the many strong feelings some have towards her before the primary season is concluded (much to good ol’ Barack Hussein Obama’s benefit). After spending some time communing with the spirits of elections past, present and future, I do believe that it would be to the benefit of the GOP if Hillary was the Democratic nominee. Let’s just say if I had the opportunity to vote in the Democratic primary, I’d vote for her. She is indeed my dream candidate. Obama may be the baby wacker of the century but he’ll be harder to ravage in the long run. We’ll take on Hillary any day.
Even if she managed to get herself elected (thanks George Bush for making that a possibility) she would be so embattled and battered every single day that it would be far more difficult for her to accomplish much. And the conservative movement would unite in a crusade worthy of saga, myth and legend to eject her from her gilded throne at the earliest moment possible.
And in case you hadn’t noticed:
Your messenger has this one categorized in his quote file under Sunshine Blowing; Nonsensical; Would you please repeat!:
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”
You need to guess who said it. The answer is below the fold.
“The assumption I made was that the Republicans would soon see the light.”
-Nancy Pelosi, on her miscalculations about Iraq policy that have led to more than 20 legislative defeats for Democrats on war funding (as quoted in Townhall Magazine)
Here is what Amanda Carpender at Townhall thinks. What do you think?
As Barack Obama shows signs of pulling away with the Democratic nomination, it appears he’s trying to find some wiggle room in his support of a firm withdrawal date from Iraq.
CBS’s Steve Kroft asked Obama in a 60 Minutes interview if he would pull out of Iraq according to a timetable “regardless of the situation? Even if there’s sectarian violence?”
Obama responded, “No, I always reserve as commander in chief the right to assess the situation.”
As a U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate, Obama has called on President Bush again and again to agree to a binding withdrawal date for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
He even introduced legislation, titled The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, to remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
When Obama introduced his bill, he said on the Senate floor that: “The President must announce to the Iraqi people that within 2 to 4 months, under this plan, U.S. policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. The President should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates.” Read the rest of this entry
Having Andre and Wes posting and commenting at the same time should make all of us pause to reflect just how lucky we are that there are liberals to make us conservatives look so dang smart!
All kidding aside, I enjoyed their simultaneous presence. It makes me realize why the format of this site is superior to all others. Once again, I make the call to the general community for intelligent, grounded liberals to submit reasoned and thoughtful screeds on the issues of the day. I know there has to be more than two out there. . . not many more than that, but still more.
I want to thank Dave for posting this quote from the Patriot Post. I have been looking for it.
THE SOFT TREAD OF FASCISM
“I think you can automatically enroll people, and you will then say you’ve got to be part of this… But if you don’t start with universal healthcare, if you don’t say everybody’s going to be in the system, we’ll never get there…[G]oing after people’s wages, automatic enrollment… whatever the mechanism is, is not as important as… the fundamental commitment to universal healthcare.”
—Hillary Clinton
They played the video of her saying this on Hannity and Colmes last week. Sean went nuts as you can imagine. I cant remember who his guest was, but they said how terrible this was. The very idea of taking a young man of say 22 wages, who did not want health insurance, and make him buy it was fascist they said. Just like Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post categorized it above. Hannity exclaimed that some young people don’t want it. That is true. His guest exclaimed that actually they were unlikely to need it. That is also true.
One of the problems of our government/private hybrid health care is the uninsured. This is just a part of the problem though, just a part. One thing that is also true about Hannity’s young man is that he is actuarialy most likely to suffer a catastrophic injury. Lets say our young man flips his ATV, the he purchased with the money he saved by not buying health insurance. This results in him breaking his neck at the third cervical vertebrate. He in one instant, in a fraction of a second, becomes paralyzed from the neck down. He is on a vent, and he will need skilled care 24 hours a day for the rest of his life. He can’t eat, urinate, or move his bowels without help.
So far, there’s 92% of the vote calculated in the caucus, and Obama is leading by 500 votes. But that really doesn’t matter. What matters is this.
New Mexico has far more Hispanics than just about any other state proportionately. There are actually more Latinos in New Mexico than there are white people. That is a demographic that Hillary has not only been courting, she has been counting on it for support. They also have an African-American population of 2.5%. It is also a state governed by Bill Richardson, a man who stopped just short of endorsing Hillary only last week and was actually in the lead prior to dropping out.
So we’re talking about a state that has almost none of Barack Obama’s strongest base and a full majority of Hillary’s strongest base. He should have been crushed here. Particularly when you also remember that just like in almost every other state, the exit polls indicated that 56% of the voters were women, who form an even stronger part of Hillary’s base.
And he has a slim majority of the vote. If Hillary’s campaign isn’t regrouping and spinning their little hearts out, they should be. No amount of spin can change that.
Edit: My favorite comment from that last link:
This sounds so much like the red-blue maps, those showing red and blue nationwide by county, that made it appear that Bush had beaten Gore 98-2.
Several of those monstrosities were emailed to me by gloating Republican Schmucks. My response was that tumble weed and prairie dogs don’t count.
And THAT sums up Hillary’s supporters better than I ever could.
CULTURE
“Abortion on demand cannot be seen in isolation from social breakdown. In 1973, near the end of the Vietnam War and the approaching resignation of President Nixon two years later, the focus on self, pleasure and convenience by Baby Boomers was at its height. marriages easily dissolved as ‘no fault’ divorce laws were passed; cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births were on the rise; ‘unwanted babies’ (who were labeled ‘products of conception’ to make it easier to deny the obvious) became an impediment to the pursuit of pleasure and material gain. Abortion was not a cause, but a reflection of our decadence and deviancy. One does not begin to kill babies until other dominos have fallen. And once they have fallen, it becomes difficult to set them aright because to do so would require an admission of something so horrible that those responsible for this fetal holocaust would have to acknowledge their sin and repent of it. Such a thing is not a character trait of this most pampered generation. In recent years there have been signs that things may be—if not turning around—then moderating… Politicians and judges could help bury Roe by requiring that pregnant women receive complete information about the nature of the life within them, including being required to view sonograms before electing abortion. This would follow truth-in-labeling and truth-in-lending laws by fully informing and empowering women. Such an approach would satisfy the liberal demand to keep abortion ‘safe and legal’ and the pro-life desire to make them rare. After 35 years of slaughtering our young, isn’t it time to stop? That child born in 1973 could be a parent now. There are children who could have been born today. Thirty-five years of killing has diminished and corrupted us all. Let’s summon the moral courage to stop it for our sake and for theirs.”
The author of “Liberal Fascism”, currently popping cerebral arteries across the Left, discusses his book with Will Wilkerson of the CATO Institute. Check out the comments forum for your maximum daily dose of hate, rage and scorn. The Beast came away wondering if any of these folks actually invested the seventy minutes required to watch that video. We are lucky to have Wes here, who will do that sort of stuff and respond honestly.
Our discussions of Britain have centered around the emerging threat of Islamofacists on the once proud nation. Yet perhaps a more immediate threat to the health of our neighbor across the pond is the lack of good dental care. While our candidates bitch about the supposed health care “crisis” in America, Great Britain shows us just what we have in store if Clintonian health care comes to our shores. And it ain’t pretty. Any time the government dictates what services people can shop for and the cost of those services that doctors can charge, everyone loses. Investors Business Daily details the nightmare scenario that the nannies on the left will have us reaping if we choose to spread their seeds of deceit. While politicians whine about the millions of uninsured in America, their answers to the problem will lead to shortages of doctors. This in turn leads to *surprise* millions of people going without health care! From the article:
Since April 2006, one in every 10 dentists have stopped offering treatment under Great Britain’s national health care system. Who can blame them? The government changed its contract with 21,000 dentists almost two years ago, and the result was more work for the dentists and limits on their earnings.
Because of the shortage, 2.7 million Britons have gone nearly two years without dental work. Alice Thomson drolly summed up the situation thusly in Friday’s London Telegraph:
“In Britain today, you can stuff yourself on deep-fried Mars bars, drink 20 pints a night, inject yourself with heroin, smoke 60 cigarettes a day or decide to change your sex — and the NHS has an obligation to treat you. . . . But if you have bad teeth, forget it.”
I suspect it is just a matter of time before Great Britain changes its contract with, say, orthopedic specialists or oncologists. This is the problem with the nanny state. They can dictate whatever they deem healthful. So if you want that Royale with cheese, fine. Just know that the government may be soon re-negotiating its contract with heart specialists. Your bypass may have to wait a year or three. In Canada, the wait times cost taxpayers billions of dollars:
A Canadian Medical Association study says that long waiting times, a hallmark of the socialist system that also is pitched as a model for the U.S., costs that country’s economy $15 billion a year.
The loss is due to patients’ and caregivers’ absences from work, the increased costs of extra appointments, and drugs that patients need while they wait for treatment.
So if you are anxious to remake health care in America, be careful what you wish for!
Soros’ Iraq Death Study Was A Sham
The Left was only about 400,000 off. Why am I not surprised? The truth be damned, but at least it helped them win back Congress. That’s what really mattered anyway. Most of Conclub, to our credit, didn’t buy it for a second. Once again, we were months ahead of the curve. But don’t tell the Lefties, they’re still quoting this as fact constantly and without hesitation. Absolutely shameless.
Reason.com gives us a good look at the media manipulation that Hillary has used time and time again to salvage the often damaged Clinton brand.
Hillary Clinton’s show of emotion struck me as so calculated you’ve got to wonder if the questioner was a plant.
Let’s go where a gullible and compliant — Clinton chokes up, is applauded, at campaign stop — national press corps refuses to go — to HRC’s history.
The simple fact is that the strongest base for Hillary Clinton continues to be single women. They tear up at a broken nail and more commonly “need” things like government day care, public transportation, public assistance, universal health care, court ordered child support, and the dozens of other things that only a welfare state type government can provide. And that explains why Hillary’s message of pseudo-socialism is so palpable and attractive to them. If there is no such thing as a nuclear family unit to provide stability, security, and monetary support then you have to turn to the nanny state to provide it for you. This concept perhaps also explains the Left’s strenuous efforts to undermine, dilute, redefine and fundamentally alter the age old, traditional concepts of monogamy, marriage and family. Out with the old and in with the new. A new base of power for those that do.
I haven’t decided if I “fear” Obama or Clinton more. I think I’ve figured out I fear Obama more in the general election. He holds great appeal to many independents and the young with his charisma and change for the sake of change mantra. Hillary would be far more vulnerable in the general election, at least in my calculations. But, I fear her far more in the white house. I believe she is a true, cold hearted socialist and would be ruthless in enacting her vision for America.
Obama would be much more like Bill Clinton. Just happy to have the title, pitter patter around with his political finger in the wind, talk to one in the morning with the Obama girl and be perhaps somewhat harmless for his term. The typical bleeding heart liberal. I can’t say the same about Hillary. I thinks she’s actually dangerous and should not be underestimated by anyone.
Note to the wise: for Hillary whimpering works.
It is interesting how wealthy liberals are continually blaming the American middle class for global warming, terrorism, and pretty much all of the world’s problems. Simply put, it is all your fault.
People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn’t specify that it’s by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will be more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan and Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates persists.
And if the guilt and emotional blackmail over the melting glaciers and shrinking polar bear genitalia wasn’t enough, now the fact that all of the world does not share our lifestyle (or conversely, we are not as poverty stricken as they are) is cause for serious self-examination and self-blame. I don’t think I can bear it. After staggering for years under the ‘white man’s burden’ for 2,000 years of colonization and exploitation of those of a darker hue, now I must shoulder the burden for causing Islamic terrorism and the devastating changes to our planet that will quickly lead to the extinction of the human race.
All because my children have clean water to drink and live in a heated home while their father drives a vehicle to work and buys his socks, toothpaste and corn flakes at a big box store. Even worse is the fact that their mother washes their clothes in a machine instead of scrubbing them clean on the rocks in the river and has the audacity to make them pop tarts once in awhile.
More accurately, Britain wets itself in hopes of not offending Muslims or sounding warlike.
A few excerpts:
Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless “death cult.”
I’m sorry, is Mister Macdonald really that naive and uninformed? If anything, the members of the accurately labeled “death cult” are far from aimless. Instead they are often part of (or influenced by) the highly organized and global spanning network of jihadist organizations that have a plan, a vision, and a detailed agenda for the future.
The term “Islamic terrorist” will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities.
Once again I must excuse myself. Is it really “helpful” to attempt to portray something as something it as not? Is it helpful to attempt to fool the public into believing something that is false or misleading. Are we to believe that there is in fact no direct link between the Islamic religion and terrorist atrocities? Perhaps the esteemed aristocrats of the once mighty British Empire should visit our humble site more often. They might learn a thing or two.
The term “War on Terror” was a poor label to begin with, but not for the reasons that the British are offering. The Pentagon now uses the term “the Long War” and many on the Right have adopted the far more correct but controversial term “War on Islamofascism” or very similar names such as “War on Islamic Jihadists” or “War on Islamic extremism”. The Left doesn’t seem to want to call it anything at all besides some rambling, incoherent mess like “Bush’s illegal fascist war on behalf of Haliburton” or some other gibberish.
The powers of Political Correctness reach into every nook and cranny of government, education and public policy throughout the Western world. And such “New Speak” affects the way the public comprehends and understands the present worldwide conflict the West is embroiled in.
What the heck, label it a public health hazard and call for its eradication from the face of society and civilization. That would be alright with me.
Does This Boy Need U.S. Military Oversight ?
No, Michael Blaine, but these folks might
Below, a man named Michael Blaine commented on one of the posts. Blaine has a blog that he linked to, so I thought I’d check it out. In a truly egregious post, he posts this picture of a smiling African boy and then laments the American efforts to have a forward military base in Africa. The picture, by the way, is of a South African boy, as westernized an African country as there is, and one helped immensely by the US military. Or see here, for example, as S. Africa’s defense minister raves about the US/S. African military partnership. So it’s not surprising that S. Africa is also the most prosperous African nation, and also the freest. After all, that’s what tends to follow US military involvement. It also tends to produce smiling African children like those above, instead of the stacked corpses in areas of Africa left untouched by American intervention.
Just don’t tell that to Michael Blaine.
In my earlier post regarding Canada’s legal structure to silence political views unapproved by The State, Andre reassured us that it would all go away: “And my guess is that this will turn out the same way the “Gays suck” preacher thing did… laughed out of the Canadian Supreme Court.” I’m not sure if Andre has a different case in mind, but the case of Stephen Boissoin hasn’t caused quite the mirth among judges that Andre had thought.
In a ruling released just last week, Alberta’s Human Rights Panel has ruled that this “Gays suck” preacher has criminally spoken aloud, and must be punished.
His sentence will be announced soon, most probably by the Queen of Hearts, I fear.
The left is in a tizzy over the fire in the Eisenhower building. The thinking from the trifling ideologues on the left is that Cheney is attempting to hide some damning evidence and so he concocted a spectacular blaze. Instead of shredding the documents (or having your chief of staff hide them in his pants outside of the Archives) the Administration thought it would be wise to light a fire. You know, there is nothing more subtle than burning documents with a walloping bonfire in the heart of the nations seat of power. This thinking should come as no surprise to anyone since many on the left also believe that BushCo. took down the twin towers.
The moonbats that make up Andre’s daily news source the left wing blogosphere is ripe with love and concern for all parties involved. Here’s a sample from ThinkProgress:
I’m sure the Nazi Chimp will somehow manage to blame Iran. And start WWIII. - Kay
Looks like an evidence burning party got out of hand. - Alphaliberal
Of course Cheney was in the Oval Office at the time. After starting the fire he had to get somewhere visible to throw off suspicion. - Bartlebee
Huffington Posts readers were so worried that they had to turn off comments for that thread. The server probably couldn’t handle all of the well-wishers. LGF managed to capture a few of the concerned comments like this one:
Please all pray that Lord Cheney was not effected by smoke inhalation and that his feeble heart is still ticking. Long live Lord Cheney!
And readers of the Washington Post made their ‘get-well-soon’ greetings known to all:
I have one question: Were the S.O.Bs in the building? We would be so lucky! - Analyst72Rehersal for the upcoming Tony SnowJob cremation gone bad… – KaseMaybe Condi dropped her crack pipe - Rabbitman
Now I know that Andre has some rule about not using comments of whack jobs to make a point but it is just too easy when the racist, fascist pigs on the left wish for death for our public officials. Besides, I don’t give a crap about that rule. When your news source Huffpo has to consistently shut down comments on issues that involve the health of Republicans, you know you belong to a bankrupt ideology.
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
The ecstasy of Barack
