Crush Liberalism

BREAKING NEWS: I got your "macaca" right here!

Disturbing news about Jen’s guy in Virginia, via Drudge:

ALLEN’S REVENGE: EXPOSES UNDERAGE SEX SCENES IN OPPONENT’S NOVELS
Thu Oct 26 2006 20:05:37 ET

Sen. George Allen, R-VA, unleashed a press release late Thursday that exposed his rival’s fiction writing, which includes graphic underage sex scenes.

Whoa! I wonder what the folks on the left who’ve been piling on Foley for getting off on underage sexual innuendo have to say about this development? Probably something like “Well, it’s different…and Foley is worse, because (insert partisan illogical excuse here)!” More:

The press release, as provided by the Allen Campaign:

WEBB’S WEIRD WORLD

The Author’s Disturbing Writings Show a Continued Pattern of Demeaning Women

· Some of Webb’s writings are very disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent the families of Virginians in the U.S. Senate.

· Many excellent books about the United States military and wartime service accomplish their purposes, and even win awards, without systematically demeaning women, and without dehumanizing women, men and even children.

· Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models.

Why does Jim Webb refuse to portray women in a respectful, positive light, whether in his non-fiction concerning their role in the military, or in his provocative novels? How can women trust him to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitive references run throughout his fiction and non-fiction writings?

· Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land:

– Lost Soldiers: “A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”

Ø Bantam Books, NY, 1st Edition, 2001, (hard cover), page 333.

Ø Quote is from para. 10,.Chap. 34.

– Something to Die For: “Fogarty . . . watch[ed] a naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly and her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar, and left the banana on the bar, cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina.”

Ø William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 36.

Ø Avon Books, New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 35

Ø Quote is from para. 29, Chap. 2 “The South China Sea,”, Section 2

– A Country Such as This: “[He] could see Jawbone and Ashley Asthmatic [two guards at a Vietnamese prison camp] napping together in the grass. They faced inward, their arms entwined. It looked like they were masturbating each other. It didn’t surprise him. … It was common to see men holding hands, embracing, playing with each other. Some of them [the guards] had wanted him. He could tell in those evanescent moments between his bao cao bow, the obligatory deference when a guard entered his cell, and the first word or blow that followed it… Quick, grinding voices, turgid with repressed passion. An exploratory reaching of the hand near his groin…”

Ø Doubleday & Co., Garden City, NY, 1983 (hardcover); page 396.

Ø Bluejacket Books, 2001 (Trade paperback edition), page 396

Ø Page numbers are the same in the Naval Institute Press (paperback) edition, 1983.

Ø Quote is from fifth para, Part 5 “A Country Such As This,” Chap. 24, Section 1

– A Sense of Honor: “Nurse Goodbody, dark and voluptuous (Lenahan had forgotten her actual name, it was something long and Italian), was a bedtime friend to many of the doctors in Bethesda. She had hinted to Lenahan that she simply could not contain herself. Doctors tending to patients, she explained, aroused her. Morphine Mary (again Lenahan could not remember her exact name) was a thin, nervous drill sergeant type, a disciplinarian who did not allow her patients even to complain. Lenahan was convinced that Morphine Mary did not even sleep with her husband. She wasn’t bad looking, he mused again, staring at her thin frame. If she’d just get laid every now and then she’d mellow out and stop being such a damn witch.” (p. 164) (Lenahan brings Goodbody home with him and has sex, pp. 188-190)

Ø Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)

Ø Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 164

Ø Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 164

Ø Quote is from fourth para in Part 3, “Chapter 4:1600”

– Something to Die For: “[Fogarty] has been thinking of the firm, springy skin and the sweet smells of a young Filipina woman named Maria in whose bed he had spent three nights almost twenty years ago. . . . She was a deliciously bad young woman. . . . On the second night, he had brought her a box of Godiva chocolates . . . . he had awakened to find her in the bathroom, sitting on the toilet with her knees underneath her chin, eating chocolates and counting her rosary beads as she prayed.”

Ø William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 32.

Ø Avon Books New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 30

Ø Quote is from third para in Chapter 2 “South China Sea,”, Part 2

– Something to Die For: “We’re on our way to becoming the world’s recreational center, a nation [USA] not to be taken seriously. Where are we still the undisputed leader? Music. Movies. Fast food. Drugs. . . . the billboards fifty years from now as you come over the bridge and stop at the tollbooths outside Manhattan: A smiling beautiful naked woman, and the sign saying AMERICAN ASS IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT.”

Ø William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 199.

Ø Avon Books New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 237

Ø Quote is from para. 38, Chap. 13, Part 1, (five paras before Part 2).

– Fields of Fire: Snake (the protagonist) sees his mother on the bed: “She looked as if she were carefully attempting to re-create a picture from some long-forgotten men’s magazine . . . . She was naked underneath the robe . . . . and the robe fell loosely away, revealing her. Snake shrugged resignedly.”

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1978 (Hardcover, 1st edition), p. 8

Bantam Books “mass market [paperback] edition” published in Sept. 2001. p. 9.

Quote is from paragraphs 18-23, Part 1 “The Best We Have”, Section 1

(NOTE: Part 1 is after the Prologue)

– Fields of Fire: “He saw the invitation with every bouncing breast and curved hip. . . . He was thirteen. . . . She was fifteen . . . . In a few moments she drew him to her and he murmured in his quiet voice, ‘I am still small.’ ‘You are large enough,’ she answered. And he found he was.”

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1978 (Hardcover, 1st edition), pp. 211-212

Bantam Books “mass market [paperback] ed.” published in Sept. 2001, pp. 280-81.

Quote is from paragraphs 8-20, Part 2 “The End of the Pipeline,” Chapter 24

– A Sense of Honor: “… that is, if you knew who your sister was, Brustein, and if she’d been born with anything between her legs except an asshole, I’d be happy to bring some class to your low-rent name by knocking the bitch up.” (p. 223)

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)

Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 223

Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 223

Quote is from 17th para in Part 4, “Chapter 7:1930”

– A Sense of Honor: “You wouldn’t have believed it, Swede. She just dropped her britches and lifted up her skirt and pissed like a man. Didn’t lose a drop, either. Not a drop.” (p. 183)

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)

Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 183

Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 183

Quote is from 23rd para in Part 3, “Chapter 8: 2300”

Three questions come to mind:

1. Did no one read the damned book before now?

2. Any predictions as to what the left will say in a spirited defense?

3. “Macaca”…macaca who?

Virginia was sooooooooooo close, too! Oh, well, there’s still other states to work on.

October 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Didn’t get the memo

“Sen. Frist to GOP: De-Emphasize Iraq“

In other news, Bush held a press conference about Iraq.

D’oh!

October 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

"The difference between D’s and R’s"

A great column by Michelle Malkin is here, and it sums up things better than I could. In light of a recent comment thread here where competing views outlined what Dems offer vs. what Republicans offer, I think this post is timely. Excerpts:

A few weeks ago, while blogging on the road (always a somewhat risky thing to do), I glibly mentioned the possibility of sitting at home for the midterms over heated disagreement with the Bush administration on immigration. Many grass-roots conservatives have grievances with how the White House has handled a number of issues, from Harriet Miers to spending to Iraq.

But we should not sit out the election. And grievances with the White House are no reason to give Nancy Pelosi the gavel. Congressional Republicans shouldn’t be blamed for Miers, the amnesty plan, etc.

My column today dovetails with the President’s comments at his press conference this morning about the fundamental difference between D’s and R’s. Video highlights here. Let me repeat what he said:

“I think the coming election a referendum on these two things: Which party has got the plan that will enable our economy to continue to grow? And which party has a plan to protect the American people? And Iraq is part of the security of the U.S. If and when we succeed in Iraq, our country will be more secure. If we don’t succeed, the country is less secure…I understand some people in Washington don’t think we are at war. They are just wrong, in my opinion. The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve safe have from which to plot and plan. The enemy would like to have WMD in order to attack us. These are lethal, cold-blooded killers. And we must do everything we can to protect the American people, including questioning detainees and listening to their phone calls from outside the country to inside the country…and as you know, there were some recent votes on that issue. And the Democrats voted against giving our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people.

…I do not question their patriotism. I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this world is…

…
As one of those post-9/11 security moms, it all comes down to a simple question for me: Who will keep this country — and my children — safer from harm?

I have many heated differences with the Bush administration over its refusal to fully enforce immigration laws; soft-headed pandering to jihadist lobbying groups; profligate spending on illusory transportation security; failure to confront the spread of sharia law; and kowtowing to Saudi princes eager to send over more young students to learn aviation in our universities.

For all the White House’s faults, however, there is no doubt in my mind that Republicans as a group are better informed, better equipped and better able to lead this country in a time of war than the Democrats. The donkey party is led by thumb-sucking demagogues in prominent positions who equate Bush with Hitler and Jim Crow, call him a liar in front of high school students and the world, fantasize about impeachment and fetishize the human rights of terrorists who want to kill me.

Put simply: There are no grown-ups in the Democrat Party.

Maybe this is what a prematurely giddy Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meant when she told the Los Angeles Times this week: “The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America’s children.”

Yep. Put the gavel in the hands of Pelosi and the Democrats, and you will put the gavel in the hands of children. Couldn’t put it better myself.

Out of the mouths of babies, huh? I would say “Out of the mouths of babes”, but no one is going to accuse Pelosi of being a “babe” any time soon. Malkin, on the other hand…but I digress.

Another clarifying moment that underscores the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on matters of national security, seriousness and secrecy took place on June 29, 2006.

That was the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted to condemn the decision by several newspapers — led by the newspaper of wreckage, The New York Times — to publish details of the Bush administration’s classified program to track terrorist financing. Known as SWIFT, the program had led to the capture of a key Bali bombing suspect and identification of a convicted al Qaeda helper based in New York City, as well as helping investigators probing domestic terrorist cells and suspected Islamic charities fronting for jihad. Under specious claims by anonymous accusers that the program’s legality and oversight were in doubt, the Times splashed details of the program all over its front pages. Democrats dutifully piled on to condemn the White House for its “illegal” “abuses of power.”

But House Republicans refused to roll over for the blabbermouth media and the blabbermouth Democrats. They put Washington on record with a vote on a nonbinding resolution stating the obvious — that news organizations may have “placed the lives of Americans in danger” by disclosing SWIFT and that Congress “expects the cooperation of all news media organizations” in keeping classified programs secret.

The resolution passed 227-183, with only 17 Democrats joining nearly all House Republicans in condemning the leak-dependent news media and supporting the surveillance program.

Since then, even the NYT admits it shouldn’t have run with the story. The Dems still think that violating federal law by releasing and publishing classified information was a good idea, its impact on the war on terror be damned!

Malkin is right in that with all of the warts that the GOP has (and God knows there are plenty), the choices are clear. The Democrats will attempt to wreck the economy through their time-and-again discredited socialist policies, and they will attempt to wreck the war on terror through their ignorance of the true nature of our enemy. The Dems will not keep us safer, and I pray that America comes to recognize this irrefutable fact come Election Day. If not, may God have mercy on this country, because Allah’s bloodthirsty followers will not.

October 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Immigration officials to GA police chief: "Piss off, redneck"

From the AJC:

They’re the faces of law enforcement in a country that doesn’t always enforce immigration laws.

But Roswell Police Chief Edwin Williams has found an unlikely ally to help him feel true to his duty: the fax machine.

At least once a day his jailers fax the names of inmates suspected of being in the country illegally to immigration agents in Atlanta. It’s a practice Williams started a decade — and roughly 10,000 names — ago, long before illegal immigration grew into a front-burner issue.

Today, Roswell stands alone in the area covered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) regional office in Atlanta. No other jurisdiction in the Carolinas or Georgia sends such a list, said Kenneth Smith, the office’s special agent-in-charge.

The north Fulton city of 100,000 has faxed the booking sheets of 1,396 detainees to ICE in the past nine months alone, according to police department records. Immigration agents have picked up three of them, Williams said, or one out of every 465.

Once, an immigration official called to say the police department was wasting its time with the daily faxes, Williams said. So the jailers quit. When the chief found out, he went ballistic. “I said ‘You will continue,’ ” Williams recalled. “I don’t care if they just throw it away. It’s my fax paper.”

The daily faxes are Williams’ way of navigating the widening gap between local expectations and national realities on immigration. A broken federal system may be to blame for the estimated 12 million people living in the United States illegally, but all levels of law enforcement — from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to Main Street, USA — are feeling the heat.

We all know the feds are not even remotely serious about stopping illegal immigration. The Chamber of Commerce likes the cheap labor and greases enough palms in DC to stymie efforts at reducing illegal immigration. But for the feds to tell the cops to stop “wasting their time”? That’s pretty damned galling!

October 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Hysteria over NJ "gay marriage" court ruling

My conservative friends may disagree in whole or in part on this issue, but what’s a little disagreement among friends? From the AP:

The gay marriage issue in New Jersey is moving from a legal dispute to a political one.

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that New Jersey must extend all the rights of marriage to gay couples. But the justices left it to state lawmakers to decide whether to provide those rights in the form of marriages, civil unions or something else — and gave the Legislature 180 days to reach a decision.

The NJ Supreme Court is a liberal activist court most of the time. After all, recall that in 2002, they legislated from the bench in declaring that the NJ legislature’s law stating the deadline that ballot changes could be made was to be ignored…and the court implemented its own deadline, contrary to (and circumventing of) state law. However, in this case, the NJ SC decided to defer to the legislature. Why now, I don’t know. But it is what it is, and the fact is that the NJ legislature should indeed be the one addressing the issue.

However, let the hysteria begin:

Several Democratic lawmakers said they will push for full marriage rights.

But some Republicans, the minority party in both houses of the Legislature, said they will seek a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, vowed to have the justices impeached.

“Neither the framers of New Jersey’s 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage,” Merkt said.

A state constitutional amendment is certainly a viable option to circumvent a court’s ruling. But on what grounds would Merkt have the justices impeached? Seems reactionary and poorly thought out to me.

WARNING: Juvenile humor advisory! In three…two…one…OK, you’ve been warned:

National gay rights advocates embraced the ruling. Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples.

“They get to decide whether it’s chocolate or double-chocolate chip,” she said.

Or perhaps “fudge or double-packed fudge”? I know, I know, that’s horrible…hey, you were warned!

I’ve made my thoughts on gay marriage clear before, so allow me to sum it up for those who have arrived since then: I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions. Marriage is a bond of holy matrimony, while civil unions have nothing to do with religion and allow two consenting adults to have the same benefits (health insurance, etc.) that married couples have. Maybe it’s just semantics, but that’s my take.

Plus, let’s get real: gay marriage will never be the law of the land, especially since some states have already amended their constitutions to prohibit it. Just as a total ban on abortion will never occur, nor will universal gay marriage…whether anyone likes it or not.

October 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | 1 Comment