Crush Liberalism

Galloway: "Murdering Blair would be justified"

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

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

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

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

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

May 25, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Why Congress fears "English as primary language"

May 25, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

ACLU against free speech for its board members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This defense of the policy is laughable:

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

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

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

May 25, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Clinton to eulogize Bentsen at funeral

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

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

“So I said, ‘Rectum? It damned near killed him!’ HAHAHAHA! That one cracks me up every time!”

“Oh, sh#t! Didn’t see the camera! Uh…’BOO-HOO-HOO-HOO!’”

May 25, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Hastert under investigation in bribery scandal?

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

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

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

May 25, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment