Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

GOP continues spinelessness in Senate

From Robert Novak, via RCP:

The Senate Republican leadership met behind closed doors this week to ponder Majority Leader Harry Reid’s audacious power grab on the massive catchall appropriations bill. They decided they could not filibuster the bill for fear of being blamed for closing down the government, but they still wanted enough votes opposing cloture to make an impression. That would seem a formula for defeat, and indeed it was.

The cloture vote to end debate on the bill Tuesday was 71 to 26, with 23 Republicans — including the party’s two leaders — voting with Reid. The GOP was accepting a bill that perpetuates earmarks, masks additional domestic spending under the disguise of fiscal responsibility, and establishes a precedent of prohibiting the opposition party from amending an appropriations bill.

The Republican defeat would have been a plausible outcome if Democrats held a commanding Senate majority, even as large as their edge in the House. In fact, the Senate margin is 51 to 49, with Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota hospitalized and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut barely a Democrat. What ails Senate Republicans is lack of principle and lack of will, two reasons why they lost the 2006 elections.

At issue are nine appropriations bills, totaling $465 billion, left over from the Republican-controlled Congress. Democrats claimed to propose a continuing resolution (CR) — keeping spending level while beginning work on a new round of money bills for the next fiscal year. But it was not really a CR. It was an omnibus appropriations bill changing money levels.

After the bill passed the House under procedures that prevented any serious attempts at amendment, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma went to the floor as the Senate’s leading spending watchdog. He said that “to make the claim that there are no earmarks in this bill is an outright falsehood that the American people should not accept.” He added: “There’s no transparency with these earmarks. Most Americans will never know how they got there. The lobbyists will know, the members [of Congress] will know, the campaign checks that come from them will know, but the regular American Joe won’t know.”

Earmarks aside, Coburn declared it is “a lie” that “we stay within the budget” in the omnibus bill because $3.1 billion in Defense funds have been transferred to domestic programs. He correctly predicted that this money will be appropriated for Defense again in the next supplemental money bill “for things that absolutely have to happen with our troops.” So, the omnibus actually represents a spending increase.

For those of you who thought the Dems would really bring about fiscal responsibility, you were duped. They’re just as bad as the GOP, if not worse, in that they talked a good game about fiscal discipline, until they got the purse strings. Guys like Coburn who are badly needed to impose fiscal responsibility and accountability in D.C. are sorely lacking on the Hill!

Uh…well…uh…then again, Coburn doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, does he?

Finally, an HIV testing program for pregnant women sponsored by Dr. Coburn, a physician, has been eliminated. That looks like vindictiveness toward Coburn, whose campaign against excessive spending has antagonized colleagues on both sides of the aisle. To call his broad-based “baby AIDS testing” program an earmark betrays animus.

Yes, eliminating Coburn’s earmark is an act of hostility and vindictiveness, and it certainly does nothing for pregnant women. However, if Coburn is to be taken seriously in his quest to end Congressional earmarks, it’s not too much to ask for him to include himself in that group.

Anywho, here’s where the GOP gets all French on us:

That left Republicans with these options: bow to Reid, or block the money bill with a filibuster as today’s [Feb. 15] deadline for funding the government approached. But Republicans have never quite recovered from their political disaster in the 1995 shutdown of government and do not want a repetition. Thus, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip Trent Lott, while deploring Reid’s tactics, voted for cloture on Tuesday — the white flag of surrender.

Republican sources say the leadership did not want to hurt senators facing uphill re-election contests in 2008 by risking a government shutdown. That is an admission of weakness by the Republican minority as the new Congress begins. With only 49 unadulterated Democrats in their seats, Harry Reid showed he could stare down the GOP.

For those of you who were thinking that 2006 was just a two-year blip on the radar screen, dream on. Unless wholesale changes are made in the direction of the GOP, they will continue to flounder in their newfound minority status…and they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

February 15, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, hypocrisy, Reid | Leave a Comment

Puff piece on Al "Lootin’ for Air America" Franken

Thanks to a colleague who passed this on to me. From a San Franistan online fishwrap, the column is entitled “Is Al Franken Worthy to Take Wellstone’s Seat”…despite the pesky little fact that the seat belongs to Coleman and not Wellstone:

Yesterday, comedian Al Franken made it official that he will run in 2008 against Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. There is no Republican who I want to see defeated more than Norm Coleman – who challenged the late Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002, and only won after Wellstone tragically died in a plane crash.

Coleman, who had been losing to Wellstone in the polls, would have likely lost to Mondale (Wellstone’s Democrat replacement) had it not been for the sickening pep rally that occurred at Wellstone’s funeral. Continuing:

Paul was the most outspoken progressive in the U.S. Senate, an incredible grass-roots organizer and a relentless critic of the Bush Administration. Norm Coleman is a cynical opportunist who switched parties from Democrat to Republican out of expediency – a “hollow man”, said Garrison Keillor, who “sold his soul for a Senate seat.”

As opposed to former “Republican” Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords, whose defection from the GOP in 2001 tilted the Senate from Republican control to Democrat control? Jeffords received his 30 pieces of silver in the form of a Senate committee chairmanship from the new Dem leadership he brought to power. Yet somehow, the left saw Jeffords as a man of “principle”, while Coleman is merely an “opportunist”! In other words, leaving the GOP is “courageous” but leaving the Democrats is “calculating”. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Continuing:

It was infuriating to see so many Democrats apologize for the Memorial Service, as it drove the media narrative that Wellstone supporters were “out-of-line.” But in his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken wrote the most eloquent and powerful chapter I have ever read about what transpired. In 29 pages, Franken shared the anger and outrage that so many of us felt about how we were never really given the chance to properly mourn Paul’s death.

You were given the chance to mourn Wellstone’s death. It was at an event known by normal Americans as a “funeral”, yet because you squandered the chance that you purport to have never received, it’s the right’s fault? Good grief, you people are myopic! Continuing:

Despite rhetoric that would make him a “liberal” Democrat, along with his hilarious jabs at Republicans that keep us amused, it is clear that Al Franken is no Wellstone when it comes to the issues.

Such “jabs” include bodyslamming hecklers of Howard Dean and insulting the troops in front of then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Yes sir, I bet the left is amused by such displays of statesmanship they think would go well in the Senate.

Where I agree with the author is that Franken is no Wellstone. See, aside from not wanting to physically assault someone, Wellstone also wouldn’t have been associated with an organization that looted from inner city kids and Alzheimer’s patients. Finally, Wellstone seemed to have compassion for gay people, never “joking” about taking pleasure in seeing a gay man killed (won’t see THAT “botched joke” in the MSM, will ya? Maybe Al and Fred Phelps can go gaybashing together?).

You really want this to be your Senator, Minnesota?

February 15, 2007 Posted by | al franken, hypocrisy, moonbats | Leave a Comment

Fun with "moonbots"

NOTE: I posted this last year, but I’m going to bump this from time to time for a little fun.

No, that’s not a typo. A “bot” is a program that automatically executes a program under certain conditions, such as “online chat bots do things like greet people when they enter a chat room, advertise Web sites, and kick people out of chat rooms when they violate the chat room rules.”

Well, lookie what I found: a moonbat bot, or as I prefer to call it, a “moonbot.” Here’s what it generated for me:

Nevertheless, the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media leads our attention to this calamity brought to us by a horrific onslaught, known as Shock and Awe. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Colin Powell’s parade of lies provides a pretext for the theocrat Ashcroft’s suspension of our civil rights. On the other hand, Donald Rumsfeld’s worldview can be regarded as the slaughter of thousands of children by Air Force cluster bombs. As Norman Mailer pointed out, the influence of Leo Strauss represents the crushing of internal dissent in order to propagate the resurgence of White Supremacist ideologies.

Sounds like something that recent Jew-hatin’ schizo visitors here would say, huh? Go ahead, and click here to give it a whirl. Hit Refresh on your browser to reload a modified ranting. I can keep myself entertained for hours doing this!

By the way, the original Autorantic Virtual Moonbat is below. Click the Rant button for randomly generated moonbat droppings. Fun for the whole family!

February 14, 2007 Posted by | humor, moonbats | Leave a Comment

Edwards bloggers canned, MSM blames conservatives

John Edwards…what a “centrist”! The MSM is doing its level best to run interference for the Silky Pony, but thanks to the new media, it’s not working. From Brent Bozell:

In every electoral cycle, the liberal media informs us that the Democratic Party will fight fiercely for the votes of religious Americans and refute the ugly, even slanderous caricature that the Democrats are the party that mocks God, prayer, and everything most Americans hold dear.

And then, suddenly the alleged caricature has a name. Meet Amanda Marcotte.

Marcotte is a hater – to be precise, a hater of the Christian religion and how it apparently warps society with its oppressive myths. For some mysterious reason, John Edwards, just a few years removed from being inaccurately hailed by coddling correspondents as a Southern centrist balancing the John Kerry ticket, hired Marcotte as one of his official bloggers.

The novelty of the 2008 presidential campaign is the apparent necessity for every campaign to have an official blogger or two. The problem, it seems, is that Edwards never seemed to read – let’s hope he never read – a thing his sneering new employee wrote over a period of months. It was all summed up in one outrageous alleged joke from last summer:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

In other words, Christianity is for kooks. It’s a knee-slapper to imagine that a “morning-after” abortifacient pill would cause embryonic Jesus Christ to be expelled from Mary’s womb. Bill Donohue at the Catholic League waved the red flag of anti-Catholic bigotry, based not only on this passage, but others where Marcotte called Pope Benedict a “dictator” who wants to consign unbaptized babies to the fires of Hell.

But Marcotte’s joke isn’t merely anti-Catholic, but anti-Christian. The virgin birth of Jesus is a miracle believed in by 79 percent of Americans (as much as that displeases the New York Times, and presumably, the Edwards for President campaign). Was Edwards trying to lock up that massive Atheist Vote?

Every Democrat in the race ought to be asked if this hatred is acceptable in the Democratic Party. Don’t count on our secular and “objective” media to find the Democrats at fault here. In a few weeks, we’ll be hearing again how they’re just as devout as the Other Party.

For his part, Edwards issued one of the most demonstrably stupid statements ever released by a major presidential candidate. Of Marcotte and another feminist Edwards blogger, Melissa McEwan, who blogged against President Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base” before being hired by him, Edwards declared:

“They both said it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word.”

Edwards cannot possibly be that devoid of brain waves. You cannot logically believe that people calling Christians ‘Christofascists” or blaspheming God himself “didn’t intend” to malign someone’s faith. Edwards did not fire them. He kept them on, insisting his campaign shouldn’t be “hijacked” – by that outraged 79 percent of Americans. His decision maligned their faith.

Edwards’ friends in the media responded in classic fashion. They were slow to notice, and when they did, there were no Holy Spirit sperm jokes to be found. Instead, reporters vaguely referred to “sometimes vulgar and intemperate writings.” The average American has no idea how offensive Marcotte’s writings were.

As an example, CNN ran an early story carrying an on-screen graphic noting there were accusations these bloggers were (in quotes) “anti-Catholic.” This is a bit like suggesting that the KKK is merely quote-unquote anti-black.

There were refreshing exceptions. Some media liberals were not just bothered, but disgusted by the comments. Kudos to columnist Mark Shields and reporter Nina Totenberg, who decried Marcotte and Edwards on the talk show “Inside Washington.” Shields spoke for many Americans when he said “if she had written similarly about a Jewish person, an Islamic person, a gay or a lesbian, she would be banished to the outer darkness.” Amen.

Just imagine Edwards hiring a blogger who wrote repeatedly on the Internet that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy, or that the Holocaust was a myth. Would Edwards say that blogger didn’t intend to “malign” the Jews?

Days after the controversy broke, Marcotte quit the Edwards campaign – after writing another blog post mocking the Virgin Birth. She hates Jesus Christ more than she loves John Edwards. But the “Christofascist”-trashing McEwan is still drawing a salary as Internet coordinator. Will Edwards keep her? Will the media remain disinterested? The media’s own hostility to religion does not leave room for optimism.

Cheer up, Brent. McEwan was fired…er, “resigned on her own terms”…just yesterday. And how does the MSM describe her departure?

A second blogger working for Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards quit Tuesday under pressure from conservative critics who said her previous online messages were anti-Catholic.

I suppose that Shields and Totenburg will have their liberal credentials revoked for now being seen as “conservative critics” to messages that are “allegedly” anti-Christian (as if their garbage could be interpreted as anything but).

Plus, since when does a liberal quit his/her job because conservatives are pissed? If that’s the case, someone go piss of Nancy Pelosi, and pronto!

February 14, 2007 Posted by | John Edwards, media bias, moonbats | Leave a Comment

Night and Day

Today’s N&D brought to you by the letters M, S, and M again. From the Old Gray Hag’s blog:

Ask most political analysts and they’ll tell you that at this point, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Michigan –- oops, sorry, Massachusetts –- both have about an equal chance to win their party’s nomination and become president.

But that might be tough to tell by looking at the press contingent that showed up at each announcement.

Mr. Obama’s aides said that he had credentialed more than 600 media for his announcement in Springfield., Ill., on Saturday, and while campaigns are given to exaggeration, that sure seemed right: They were everywhere, filling platforms and hotel rooms. There were crews from Japan and England (foreign news crews are the first and surest sign of a very heavily covered event) as well as some of the bigger feet in the American political media: Joe Klein, Chris Matthews and our own Maureen Dowd among them. They had to rent a full-blown American Airlines jet to cart the candidate and his reporters around.

Guess who was not here this morning as Mr. Romney made his announcement? There were probably 200 members of the media; no Japanese crews in sight. Mr. Klein, Mr. Matthews and Ms. Dowd could not be spotted. And the transportation? We are writing this from a Dornier 328 commuter jet, which has been commandeered to carry Mr. Romney’s press contingent to Des Moines. And yes, there are empty seats.

Nope…no liberal media bias.

February 13, 2007 Posted by | media bias, Night and Day, Obama, Romney | Leave a Comment

"HOUSE HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM"

From Drudge:

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning…then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

Irony. It’s not just for breakfast anymore.

February 13, 2007 Posted by | global warming | Leave a Comment

Prager hands Goodman her lunch over "Holocaust denier"

Dennis Prager, via RCP:

In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . “

This is worthy of some analysis.

First, it reflects a major difference between the way in which the Left and Right tend to view each other. With a few exceptions, those on the Left tend to view their ideological adversaries as bad people, i.e., people with bad intentions, while those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.

Those who deny the Holocaust are among the evil of the world. Their concern is not history but hurting Jews, and their attempt to rob nearly six million people of their experience of unspeakable suffering gives new meaning to the word “cruel.” To equate those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust is to ascribe equally nefarious motives to them. It may be inconceivable to Al Gore, Ellen Goodman and their many millions of supporters that a person can disagree with them on global warming and not have evil motives: Such an individual must be paid by oil companies to lie, or lie — as do Holocaust deniers — for some other vile reason.
…
A second lesson to be drawn from the Goodman statement is that it helps us to understand better one of the defining mottos of contemporary liberalism: “Question authority.” In reality, this admonition applies to questioning the moral authority of Judeo-Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of any other authority. UN and other experts tell us that there is global warming; such authority is not to be questioned.

Third, the equation of global warming denial to Holocaust denial trivializes Holocaust denial. If questioning global warming is on “a par” with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be? The same holds true with regard to Nazism and the George Soros statement. Claiming that America in the Iraq War is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in World War II trivializes the unparalleled evil of the Nazis.

Fourth, the lack of response (thus far) of any liberal or left individual or organization — except to defend Ellen Goodman — or from the Anti-Defamation League, the organization whose primary purpose has been to defend Jews, is telling. Just imagine if, for example, an equally prominent Christian figure had written that denying America is a Christian country is on a par with denying the Holocaust. It would have been front-page news in the mainstream media, the individual would have been excoriated by just about every major liberal individual and group, and the ADL would have cited this as an example of burgeoning Christian anti-Semitism and Holocaust trivialization. But not a word at the ADL on Soros’s comments about de-Nazifying America or Goodman’s Holocaust-denial comment.

Fifth, and finally, the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history — the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

If you don’t believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted. Just watch. That is far more likely than the oceans rising by 20 feet. Or even 10. Or even three.

I’m still waiting on that Big Oil paycheck that Gore said I was supposed to be getting to compensate me for my skepticism!

February 13, 2007 Posted by | anti-Semitism, global warming, Gore, hypocrisy | 2 Comments

Fitzmas case going down in flames

Neal Boortz observes thusly:

The media is all worked up because Robert Novak testified in the Libby trial that Karl Rove told him Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. What’s missing in all of the media coverage is that none of this matters, because neither Karl Rove nor anyone else is on trial for disclosing Valerie Plame’s name, which wasn’t a secret. So once again Scooter Libby continues to be prosecuted for lying about something that he had no reason to lie about. Only in Washington.

Ignoring the truth, the mainstream media continues to advance the lie that Valerie Plame’s identity was a secret that was passed around by Cheney, Armitage, Libby and Karl Rove. It wasn’t a secret. And even if it was, it wasn’t a secret that needed keeping by law…because Valerie Plame wasn’t a covert agent. That would explain why Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, brought no charges against anyone for leaking her name.

So now, Scooter Libby, who as far as the media is concerned is the most powerful government official in the history of the world, is on trial for no reason. If he’s acquitted, perhaps the American taxpayers can get a refund of all the money wasted on his prosecution.

When one considers that Libby is basically on trial for misremembering an irrelevant conversation and not on trial for leaking the name of a non-covert desk jockey, and no one is on trial for leaking name of said non-covert desk jockey, this case has, for the left, got to be more disappointing than Bill Clinotn in a room full of women…at a convent.

February 13, 2007 Posted by | Libby | Leave a Comment

Bush getting in the way of bigger breasts?

WARNING: Humor alert for the humor-impaired!

Damn that Chimpy McHitlerburton! Damn him to hell! From the UK:

Women have grown their own breast implants through pioneering stem cell treatment, it emerged yesterday.

Scientists harvested the stem cells from the women’s own fat and encouraged them to form breast tissue.

They say the result gives a more natural look than many of the synthetic implants used by showbusiness stars like Pamela Anderson.

The Japanese teams have carried out trials on dozens of women and say they have had no problems.

They say the treatment will be routinely available from plastic surgeons within five years.

We’d have the bigger racks a heckuva lot sooner if not for Bush’s puritanical views on stem cell research funding! Thanks, Dubya, for preventing the taxpayers from subsidizing my honey’s larger, more natural boobs!

February 13, 2007 Posted by | humor | Leave a Comment

House Dems to try and pass capitulation resolution

From My Way News:

House Democrats rolled out their resolution opposing President Bush’s troop increase in Iraq on Monday, setting up a likely rebuke in a political landscape turned upside-down since Congress’ overwhelming 2002 endorsement of force against Saddam Hussein.

Lawmakers are expected to vote on a resolution by week’s end opposing Bush’s decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. The measure states simply that the House “will continue to support and protect” troops serving in Iraq but “disapproves” of the troop buildup.

Debate was to begin Tuesday, and the House vote will mark its first on the war since Democrats won control in the November elections. While the measure is not binding and would not affect the funding of the war, passage would be an embarrassing rejection of Bush’s Iraq war policy and could force many Republicans to choose between backing the president or criticizing a deeply unpopular war.

What a crock of shizit. A resolution is simply an opinion, not a bill looking to become law. The new Dem majority has been working hard with their newly found power to…craft an opinion? The president will basically say “Yeah, whatever” and dare them to cut funding. Yes, the war has been improperly managed and the American public doesn’t like it; however, the public wouldn’t exactly be thrilled about our soldiers not getting the funds they need. All this resolution does is (a) say “We don’t like this!”, not exactly a bold statement to make; (b) send a message to the troops that their mission is not appreciated back home, particularly by their “leaders”; and (c) send an encouraging message to Islamofascists worldwide that America has no will or resolve to fight their terrorism.

John Boehner (sorry, but the juvenile side of me chuckles whenever I see that name in writing) properly observed the following:

While Democrats predicted the measure would pass easily, Republican leaders tried to refocus debate on the measure in hopes of putting Democrats on the defensive.

“This resolution is the first step in the Democrats’ plan to cut off funding for American troops who are in harm’s way, and their leaders have made this abundantly clear,” said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The Dems aren’t stupid…well, not totally, anyway. They know that in order for them to hold on to their new positions, they have to govern with cowardice. In other words, they won’t do what their hearts tell them to do, which is cut funding to force troop removal. Congressional Dems want to cut and run more badly than Ted Kennedy wants that Dewars after (or before, or during) work. However, they want their seats even more.

It was one thing to run on “We oppose Bush’s handling of the war!” It’s quite another to have to actually do something about it now.

February 13, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, religion of peace | Leave a Comment

Czech prez: global "warming" bunk, Gore is nuts

I like this guy already. From the latest global “warming” “Holocaust denier“, Czech president Vaclav Klaus, via Drudge:

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with “Hospodárské noviny”, a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions…•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right …•

A: …I am right…•

Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That’s why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you’re unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

Klaus is right when he observes that modern “environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate.” In my experience, it is a home for displaced commies and anti-capitalists who lost their ideological homes after the fall of communist Russia.

Sure, a lot of environmentalists are genuinely concerned citizens who want to be good stewards of the Earth. However, it’s clear that real science plays no part in the vast majority of environmentalists’ lives, because whenever their talking point objections are overcome with science or facts, they ignore it and resort to heavy-handedness and intimidation.

Do we need to become energy independent, especially in relation to unstable countries like Iran and Venezuela? Yes. Should we build cleaner-burning engines? Yes. Should we find alternative and cleaner energy sources? Yes. Do we need to destroy the global economy based on junk science in order to do these things. Hell no! It sounds as though Klaus agrees.

February 12, 2007 Posted by | global warming | Leave a Comment

Get your t-shirt now

Thanks to tnjack for sending this:

February 12, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, humor | Leave a Comment

Obama: against running, before he was for it

He’ll make a great Democrat candidate after all! Barack Obama officially announced his presidential candidacy over the weekend, despite this promise a mere two years ago:

I think I’ve been very clear, that there’s a Presidential election in four years, I’m not running for President in four years. I’ve been absolutely clear about it. I’ve said I think it’s a silly question.

Yeah…”silly question.”

February 12, 2007 Posted by | Obama | Leave a Comment

The French are at it again

Can’t the Frogs figure out a way to stop making themselves the butt of the world’s jokes? Guess not. From AFP:

One of France’s leading hosiery makers is launching a new line for men next month — pantyhose with a welcome front opening and big feet, available in thick mannish knit but also as sheer tights.

Gerbe, which is based in eastern France, said this week that the country’s first hosiery line for men would go on sale in March “due to increasing demand from male clients.”

The pantyhose comes with a larger belt than for women as well as an opening, with “Men opaque”, “sheer” or “satin” available in four models of tights, with and without feet, and three models of feel-good knee-high hosiery made to help drain toxins and massage tired limbs.

Internet users on a French fashion messaging board, www.ctendance.com/forum2, responded with a touch of scepticism. “Why create pantyhose for men when women’s tights are fine?” said one. Tights are unisex,” said another, “except that women’s are always softer.”

There you go, Pierre: why use men’s pantyhose when you can just wear women’s tights instead? Sometimes, words just totally fail me.

February 12, 2007 Posted by | France, non-political | 1 Comment

Flag-burning controversy, San Franistan style

From the moonbat capital of America, San Franistan, via NRO:

You, of course, have a fundamental, constitutional, First Amendment, free-expression right to desecrate the American flag. But, evidently, not the flags of Hamas and Hezhollah. Not at least if you are at San Francisco State University and you are a College Republican.

The flags of these jihadists, you see, incorporate the word “Allah” in Arabic. By walking on them during a demonstration, Debra Saunders reports in San Francisco Chronicle (hat tip, James Taranto’s Best of the Web), the College Republicans are accused by a campus body of creating a hostile environment and potentially inciting violence.

Ah yes, those “San Francisco values.” Does anyone know when the First Hundred Hours will end?

In short, college campuses have no problems with students burning the American flag. After all, it’s free speech, right? Oddly enough, burning a terrorist organization’s flag is not similarly considered free speech, and if the perp is a diabolical Republican, then that damn sure will not be tolerated!

USA = bad, jihadis = good. Thanks for the clarification, San Franistan.

February 12, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, religion of peace, San Francisco | Leave a Comment

Fallout from minimum wage hike

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, right? From AZ Central:

Oh, for the days when Arizona’s high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.

That’s certainly not the case under the state’s new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they’re cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.
…
Mark Messner, owner of Pepi’s Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.

“I’ve had to go to some of my kids and say, ‘Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,’ ” he said. ” ‘Sorry, I don’t have any hours for you.’ “
…
The Employment Policies Institute in Washington, which opposed the recent increases, cited 2003 data by Federal Reserve economists showing a 10 percent increase caused a 2 percent to 3 percent decrease in employment.

It also cited comments by notedeconomist Milton Friedman, who maintained that high teen unemployment rates were largely the result of minimum-wage laws.

“After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience,” one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004.
…
Tom Kelly, owner of Mary Coyle Ol’ Fashion Ice Cream Parlor in Phoenix, voted for the minimum-wage increase. But he said, “The new law has impacted us quite a bit.”

It added about $2,000 per month in expenses. The store, which employs mostly teen workers, has cut back on hours and has not replaced a couple of workers who quit.

Lost jobs aren’t the only consequences. How about this?

Kelly raised the wages of workers who already made above minimum wage to ensure pay scales stayed even. As a result, “we have to be a lot more efficient” and must increase menu prices, he said.

That’s the one aspect that seems to get lost on the pro-increase folks: businesses won’t just absorb their increases in cost. They’re going to cut costs (hold off capital purchases, lay off employees, etc.) and/or increase prices to offset their unnecessary cost increases. If prices of goods and services rise, then purchasing power diminishes…so exactly WHAT was the benefit of the increase again?

February 12, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, minimum wage | Leave a Comment

Photo of the day

Thanks to V the K at Caption This! for this treat. By the way, if you aren’t humor-impaired, check out Caption This! for your daily dose of political humor.

February 12, 2007 Posted by | humor | Leave a Comment

Jewish scholar attacked by Holocaust denier

Or, as Ellen Goodman would put it, “global warming skeptic.” From the Examiner:

In a bizarre attack, a well-known author and Holocaust scholar was dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator by an apparent Holocaust denier who reportedly had been trailing him for weeks.

Police escorted Elie Wiesel to San Francisco International Airport on Feb. 1 after a man accosted Wiesel in the elevator at the Argent Hotel, at 50 Third St., after Wiesel participated in a panel discussion at a peace conference and before Wiesel was scheduled to catch a flight back to New York.

Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and author of more than 40 books, including the memoir “Night,” about his experiences at Auschwitz, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Last fall, the Boston University professor was suggested as a possible replacement for Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who faces sexual assault charges.

Police confirmed this week that the attack took place and that officers escorted Wiesel to the airport following the attack. According to police, the suspect accosted Wiesel in the hotel elevator at around 6:30 p.m., saying he wanted to interview him. Wiesel said he would do the interview in the lobby. That’s when the attacker pulled him out of the elevator, police reported.

In a posting Tuesday on the anti-Zionist Web site ZioPedia, a writer using the name Eric Hunt takes credit for the attack: “After ensuring no women would be traumatized by what I had to do (I had been trailing Wiesel for weeks), I stopped the elevator at the sixth floor. I pulled Wiesel out of the elevator. I said I wanted to interview him.”

Wiesel grabbed at his chest and yelled for help, according to the posting. “I told him, ‘Why don’t you want people to know the truth?’ His expression changed, and he began screaming again. …” the posting reads.Police reported that the suspect tried to force Wiesel into one of the rooms, but ran away when Wiesel started yelling.

The online posting states that the writer intended to “bring Wiesel to my hotel room where he would truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his non-fiction Holocaust memoir, Night, is almost entirely fictitious.” Later in the posting, the Holocaust is portrayed as a “myth.”

Attacks like this may warm the glacial hearts of anti-Semites like Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, Wes Clark, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, but the rest of normal America finds it disgusting.

No word on whether or not Hunt believes in global “warming” or not. Hey, I may be a global “warming” skeptic, but contrary to Goodman’s assertion, I’ve never had an inclination to go whack a Jew for it.

February 10, 2007 Posted by | anti-Semitism, moonbats | 1 Comment

Obama: Did I mention I was black?

From Drudge:

Acknowledging that his presidential campaign has opened a racial debate, Sen. Barack Obama, who has a white mother and an African father, says if you look African-American, you are treated like one. Obama and his wife, Michelle, who also addresses the race issue, appear in an interview with Steve Kroft to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Feb. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS television Network. If, as expected, Obama declares his formal candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination tomorrow, it will be his first interview to be broadcast after that event.

When asked by Kroft if growing up in a white household had caused him to make a decision to be black, Obama replies, “I’m not sure I decided it. I think… if you look African American in this society, you’re treated as an African-American.Ó “It’s interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that… I’ve become a focal point for a racial debate,” says Obama. (He has? What’s the topic of the debate? I’ve seemed to have missed that. – Ed.)

Now, this is incredibly shameless and ignorant:

Obama’s wife also addresses the race issue when asked by Kroft whether she fears for her husband’s life as a black candidate. “I don’t lose sleep over it because the realities are that… as a black man… Barack can get shot going to the gas station,” says Michelle Obama. “You can’t make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen.”

For the love of God (insert politically correct deity here)! Only black men get shot in public? Hell, I just watched the local news morning show and saw that an eight-year-old boy was shot in Jacksonville in a drive-by shooting. The weird thing was…the kid was white! Maybe the news got it wrong, since Mrs. Obama says that such an event only happens to black men.

Finally:

Will being African-American hold him back as a candidate? “No…. If I don’t win this race it will be because of other factors –[that] I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace,” Obama tells Kroft.

Obama is correct. His race will have nothing to do with his candidacy, in that virtually no one will refuse to vote for him due to his skin color. As for his “I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go”, he is correct…he hasn’t come close to that in the whopping TWO WHOLE YEARS that he’s been in the Senate.

But hey…vote for him, or you’re a bigot. Neener-neener.

February 10, 2007 Posted by | Obama | Leave a Comment

Quote of the day: Ellen Goodman

What a moronic and patently offensive comparison to make! From leftard columnist Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe:

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

So now I am like a Holocaust denier because I see a large amount of scientific data that casts doubt on this “certainty” that global “warming” is manmade?

Let’s see: the Holocaust had actual pictures of the event; there are actually people today who survived it or had family members/friends who were there; Germany admits it. In other words, there is tangible (i.e. “seeing and feeling” concrete) evidence that the Holocaust was real and man-made.

Let’s see: scientists have shown that the sun is hotter, thus warming everything around it; scientists have shown that global “warming” is happening on Mars, despite the absence of Hummers; scientists’ “hockey stick” methodology is flawed and intentionally omits a warm period in its “record” that predated the industrial revolution. In other words, there is NO tangible evidence that global “warming” is real, much less man-made. Sure, there is “evidence”, just as there was “evidence” and “consensus” once upon a time that the Earth was flat!

Plus, what’s this “denying the past is as bad as denying the future” crap? If I denied that the Colts just won the Super Bowl, it would be factually possible to prove me wrong. Why? Because it happened, past tense, and we all know it and saw it and can attest to it. If I denied that I would die from an elephant falling on top of me, that would be harder to prove and disprove. Why? Because it has yet to happen. However, I do know that I am going to the zoo, and the zoo has elephants, so what say you now, deniers??

In other words, we KNOW for SURE what the past is, but we can only SPECULATE as to what the future holds. Apparently, speculating in a way contrary to Goodman’s sensibilities makes one a “denier” of the Holocaust kind!

While I never found Goodman to be anything more than an only-slightly-to-the-right-of-Marx DNC parrot, I never thought she would stoop so low as to be deliberately inflammatory and offensive this way. Like most leftards, though, the true colors eventually shine through.

February 9, 2007 Posted by | global warming, moonbats, quote of the day | 2 Comments

Taxing the "evil" oil companies?

From Lawrence Kudlow via RCP:

ExxonMobil just reported the largest annual profit ever by a U.S. company — a staggering $39.5 billion.

I say congratulations, although Hillary Clinton begs to differ.

At the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, the senator from New York said, “The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.”

Take? Isn’t that a confiscation of private property? Author P.J. O’Rourke framed it perfectly on a recent edition of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co.”: She’s “Hugo Chavez in a pants suit.”

And what exactly would Mrs. Clinton be taking? ExxonMobil’s profits are outsized, but they come on sales of $377.5 billion, making for a profit margin of just over 10 cents on the dollar. This remains well below the profit margins of many industries, including banking and biotech, where the margins nearly double those in the energy sector. The numbers are big, but the returns are middling.

And since sales and profits in the energy sector depend on the world price of oil, it’s feast or famine for these businesses. In the last decade, oil prices have fluctuated from about $10 a barrel to nearly $80. Talk about volatile pricing.

Indeed, the energy business isn’t easy. Still, ExxonMobil remains one of the best-run companies in America. Many professional investors believe it’s the best-run company. In his recent book, “The Future for Investors,” Jeremy Siegel of the University of Pennsylvania reveals that Exxon has been one of the top three stocks in terms of return on investment over the past 50-odd years. John D. Rockefeller Sr., looking down from on high, must be pleased.

But it’s also a tax-burdened company. While ExxonMobil recorded record profits last year, it also paid $100.7 billion in taxes — two-and-half times its net profits, according to the Tax Foundation. In fact, over the past 25 years, federal and state governments took $397 billion from the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today’s dollars, that’s $2.2 trillion.

This isn’t an isolated problem. The prevailing 35 percent corporate tax rate takes a monster bite from all U.S. businesses. Moreover, our business taxes are far too high in relation to the rest of the world. Believe it or not, the corporate tax rate is lower in France than it is in the United States.

Along with slow-growing Japan, the United States has the highest marginal tax rate on corporate profits of any of the developed countries. Think of this: Germany is cutting its corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 25 percent. And if frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy wins the French presidential election this spring, he plans to slash France’s corporate tax burden. Meanwhile, we’ll still be taking our best companies behind the barn and shooting them.

The bottom line here is that our economic system is all about free-market capitalism, and at the core of that system is profit. (No wonder Shrillary and her leftist ilk have their boxers in a bunch! – Ed.) Profit isn’t a dirty word. From profits spring the abundance of this great country. Profits are the mother’s milk of stocks and the economy. Expanding profits provide businesses the resources to enlarge production operations and hire additional workers. This, in turn, is how incomes are created — wages that are then spent by American families.

Why can’t liberals grasp this? (Because in the mind of liberals, this country isn’t made great by people, but by government. – Ed.)

When the government meddles in the market and taxes companies more — when it sticks its nose where it doesn’t belong — it ends up hurting not just businesses, but all individuals. Taxing profits more means taxing families more. Taxing profits more leads to smaller wage gains for middle-income workers. When you tax American companies more, the American workforce is paid less. And when you tax American energy companies more, they produce less energy. That means higher prices for gas at the pump and heating fuel at home. This may enrich Uncle Sam, but it comes at the expense of ordinary folks.

Washington economist Kevin Hassett has shown that the U.S. workforce bears a full 70 percent of the cost of corporate taxes. So, if folks are indeed worried about wage inequality, they should be lobbying their congressional representatives to cut corporate taxes in order to increase worker wages.

The truth is, when you tax profits more you undermine the American work ethic and the incentive structure that goes along with it. In fact, you demoralize the very system that has made this country great. It’s the people who ultimately pay the corporate profits tax — and that includes shareholders, pensioners and other retirees. Business taxes should be headed down, not up.

Punish ExxonMobil for turning a healthy profit? Take those profits? Do that, and you punish the American worker and the entire economy, too.

Unfortunately, the left is governed by such an intense class envy that they allow that disease to fester in their heads, thus infecting their sensibilities and clouding them from economic reality.

February 9, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, Hillary, socialism | Leave a Comment

New York under feet of snow

No doubt this is George W. Bush’s fault, right? From My Way News:

While the northern Plains and Northeast shiver in dangerously cold temperatures, the folks in upstate New York are keeping warm shoveling snow – lots of snow.

Since Sunday, the small towns of Parish and Mexico have recorded more than 6 feet of snow, and forecasters with the National Weather Service say it isn’t over yet.

Another 2 feet or more of heavy lake effect snow was expected Thursday for the communities along eastern Lake Ontario, and more squalls are likely through the weekend.

“We’re just trying to keep up. It’s almost an unreal amount,” said Mayor Randy Bateman of Oswego, where 70 inches of snow had fallen by Thursday morning. “We catch up when it stops, but then it just comes again, even heavier.”

Whiteout conditions – the snow has been falling at a rate of 5 inches an hour at times – forced state police to temporarily close Interstate 81 between Central Square and Pulaski, a stretch of about 15 miles. Travel advisories against unnecessary travel were posted for Oswego and its neighboring counties. Mexico officials renewed a snow emergency declaration, and many government offices were closed.

Damn that global “warming”!

Someone get this guy up to NY pronto!

February 9, 2007 Posted by | global warming | Leave a Comment

Socialism failing yet again

Via Texas Rainmaker:

There’s just no denying the impact Hugo Chavez has had…

Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week, leaving only unsavory bits like chicken feet, while costly artificial sweeteners have increasingly replaced sugar, and many staples sell far above government-fixed prices.

President Hugo Chavez’s administration blames the food supply problems on unscrupulous speculators, but industry officials say government price controls that strangle profits are responsible. Authorities on Wednesday raided a warehouse in Caracas and seized seven tons of sugar hoarded by vendors unwilling to market the inventory at the official price.
…
Yet inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years in an economy awash in petrodollars, and food prices have increased particularly swiftly, creating a widening discrepancy between official prices and the true cost of getting goods to market in Venezuela.

Coming to theaters Fall 2008?

This is yet another example in a long laundry list of examples of the failure of socialism. As Thomas Sowell wisely notes: “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

February 9, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, socialism | Leave a Comment

DNC further slouching towards dhimmitude

From LGF:

When Imam Husham Al-Husainy delivered his now-infamous lines about doom, oppression, and occupation at the DNC winter meeting, standing at his side was none other than party chairman Howard Dean.

And Dean gave him a congratulatory handshake, right after the part about America’s “oppression and occupation.”

As you can see in this video, shot from a different angle than Hot Air’s C-SPAN clip.

Here is a partial transcript of Al-Husainy’s speech at the DNC winter meeting:

In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation.

“And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation”? Veiled expression of desire for the destruction of Israel and America, perhaps?

Someone remind me: how are the Dems gonna combat Islamic terrorism? If we are to judge them by their actions, I would say that the Dems plan on fighting Islam terrorism by submitting to it. I guess this is what Jean-Francois Heiz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) meant by fighting that “sensitive war” on Islamic terrorism.

February 9, 2007 Posted by | dhimmitude, Howard Dean, political correctness, religion of peace | Leave a Comment

Quote of the day: Don Imus

You go, Don! Courtesy of Poison Pero at Liberal Jackass Quote of the Day:

Chris Matthews (NBC ‘Screwball’ Host)

“We love good mayors because we love our cities and Giuliani is a city guy…I’m so sick of Southern guys with ranches running this country. I want a guy to run for president who doesn’t have a fucking ranch.”

- A statement Matthews made on the Don Imus Radio Show.

**Ooopss. The FCC won’t like that one…….I’m going to leave my comment to the rest of this interview, where Imus killed Matthews.

“Did we bleep that out of there? What were you swearing for?” (DI)

“I’m sorry.” (CM)

“If you were on ‘Meet the Press’ would you say that? Of course not.” (DI)

“I think I said something like that on my show once.” (CM)

“Yeah, your show, but nobody watches your show.” (DI)

Ouch! That oughta leave a mark!

February 8, 2007 Posted by | humor, moonbats, quote of the day | Leave a Comment

Jimmah’s anti-Semitic bigotry continues

Via Newsbusters:

Former President Jimmy Carter has gotten himself into more hot water, although it seems quite unlikely that any in the media will pay much attention to this recent faux pas (h/t LGF).

In a seemingly absurd response to a call by The Simon Wiesenthal Center for members and supporters to send letters to Carter concerning his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” the former president penned a handwritten note to the organization’s well-respected founder and Dean.

In it, Carter suggested that the Center lied about him and his book in order to raise money.

Think I’m kidding? Well, put this in your Middle East peace pipe and smoke it:

1/26/07
To Rabbi Marvin Hier

I don’t believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Carter

In reality, there was absolutely nothing in the Center’s news release concerning Carter’s book asking for money. And, there was nothing disrespectful about the letter the Center was encouraging recipients to send to the former president:

Dear President Carter:

We respect your historic achievement in forging peace between Egypt and Israel in 1979 which only deepens our disappointment and concern over your one-sided book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

President Carter there is no Israeli Apartheid policy and you know it. I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding you that the only reason there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David and offered Yasser Arafat 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and part of the Old City of Jerusalem, along with $30 billion in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Arafat’s response was the launching of the bloody Intifada which targeted innocent civilians in restaurants, malls, schools, and religious services with suicide terror attacks. Had Arafat accepted Israel’s offer at Camp David there would have long been a Palestinian State alongside Israel.

Mr. President, when the Palestinian people repudiate their fanatics in favor of a course of moderation, then there will be peace in the Middle East.

Pretty innocuous letter to elicit such a response from a former president, wouldn’t you agree?

Nothing in the letter to indicate that the Jewish center was asking for money? Why, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Jimmy the Dhimmi was insinuating that Jews are obsessed with money! Nah, that couldn’t be the case! I mean, that would be stereotyping, and we all know how Carter has no history of anti-Semitic thought or behavior, don’t we? It’s not like he and Wesley “Call them ‘New York Money People’ and not ‘Jews’” Clark have a habit of poormouthing Jews, right?

By the way, with the exception of an AP story on Tuesday, the MSM was quieter than Hillary’s bedroom. Nope…no liberal media bias!


Jimmah with his usual “deer in headlights” look

February 8, 2007 Posted by | anti-Semitism, Carter, dhimmitude, media bias | Leave a Comment

Alito’s fuzzy math?

Could someone explain this to me? From Newsmax:

Justice Alito: Future Court 50-50 Men, Women

The U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have at least as many female justices as it does male, Justice Samuel Alito told a university class Wednesday.

The Supreme Court has nine justices, so isn’t it impossible for the court to be 50-50 in terms of men and women? The most balanced it could ever be is 56% – 44%, which is 5 females and 4 males (or 5 males and 4 females). It can’t ever be the same number, can it?

I know, it seems nitpicky, but I’m just curious about it.

February 8, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

NYT down the drain?

This couldn’t happen to a nicer MSM mogul. From Haaretz:

Despite his personal fortune and impressive lineage, Arthur Sulzberger, owner, chairman and publisher of the most respected newspaper in the world, is a stressed man.

Why would the man behind the New York Times be stressed? Well, profits from the paper have been declining for four years, and the Times company’s market cap has been shrinking, too. Its share lags far behind the benchmark, and just last week, the group Sulzberger leads admitted suffering a $570 million loss because of write offs and losses at the Boston Globe.

As if that weren’t enough, his personal bank, Morgan Stanley, recently set out on a campaign that could cost the man control over the paper.

All this may explain why Sulzberger does not talk with the press. (Or it could be that he knows whatever he says, even in confidentiality, will wind up on the front page of his blabbermouth fishwrap? Oh, the irony! – Ed.)

Here’s a quote that made me giddier than Barney Frank at a Chippendale’s show (albeit clearly for different reasons, but I digress):

“I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care either,” he says.

I hope to God (insert deity du jour here) that the NYT has been shut down by then, either by market forces or by the DOJ that will have grown a pair and prosecuted the paper for violation of federal classified document and national security laws. But hey, Sulzberger is only the paper’s editor, so why should he care?

WARNING: Beverage spewage alert! Put down your drink now so your monitor doesn’t get misted/soaked by it. You have been warned in 3…2…1…OK, it’s on:

In the age of bloggers, what is the future of online newspapers and the profession in general? There are millions of bloggers out there, and if the Times forgets who and what they are, it will lose the war, and rightly so, according to Sulzberger. “We are curators, curators of news. People don’t click onto the New York Times to read blogs. They want reliable news that they can trust,” he says.

I agree with Sulzie here, on this point: People DO want reliable news they can trust. That would explain why the NYT circulation is dropping faster than Bill Clinton’s pants. After all, the NYT is about as reliable as a field sobriety test on Ted Kennedy that shows a BAC of 0.1%!

Sulzie fiddles while the Old Gray Hag burns.

February 8, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus"

From the AP:

A former youth pastor was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing a teenager and her fetus in what is believed to be the first such order in Texas, the nation’s busiest death penalty state.

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father.

“This is a significant case,” said Bexar County prosecutor Susan Reed. “This is significant for the state.”

A 2003 Texas law amended the definition of the word “individual” to include an “unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.”

Interesting, no? I mean, if the Texas law defines an “individual” to include a fetus, then can a woman be criminally prosecuted for having an abortion? That seems like a future showdown with the Supreme Court.

Anywho, here’s an odd observation:

Estrada’s attorney, Suzanne Kramer, had argued that her client made bad decisions.

“It that enough to execute him? Is that enough to kill him?” she asked the jury.

WTF? “Her client made bad decisions”? Well, no shizit, Sherlock! That’s like saying that Hannibal Lecter had “poor culinary habits” or Ted Bundy had “improper stress relief techniques” or OJ Simpson had “ineffective anger suppression”, isn’t it?

Yeah, it’s pretty safe to say that killing a pregnant teen isn’t exactly a brilliant decision. And in my view, to answer Ms. Kramer’s question: Yes, that “poor decision” thingy is enough to execute him!

February 7, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

"Edward’s War Vote: ‘The Clintons made me do it’"

Excellent analysis by neo-libertarian blogger QandO:

Ok maybe it’s not quite that drastic but its close. While being interviewed on Meet the Press, John Edwards was asked why he voted for the war and why he was so wrong:
SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment …

So John Edwards, having seen the intel offered by the Bush administration then sought independent corroboration of that information.

Fine. A prudent thing to do.

And where did he go? To officials in the previous administration, the Clinton administration, who had helped develop the intel that the Bush administration had on Iraq. And the Clinton camp essentially validated the Bush administration’s take on the subject.

So what does that tell us? At least two things:

1. Bush apparently didn’t “lie” or manipulate the intelligence if Edwards is to be believed. Whether the intel was true or not is another topic, but it seems it was believed to be true by both administrations, and Edwards admission validates that point.

2. Given the Edwards revelation, it becomes impossible to believe Hillary Clinton when she says she was duped by the Bush administration. She certainly may have been duped, but it is more likely she was duped by intel developed by the Clinton administration to which she would have been privy. My guess is, like Edwards, she was assured by those same Clinton administration officials that the threat was credible and the intel was good. Her war vote was most likely based on their information and intel, and not exclusively on that of the Bush administration.

But that just speculation, although I have a feeling it is darn good speculation.

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton on the intelligence she received prior to her vote for the AUMF:

[Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said] “The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability … The senator said she did her own “due diligence” by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. “To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence” that Saddam had WMD”.

So much for the “Bush lied” meme. And for all you consensus fans out there, note carefully what the “consensus of the intelligence” produced re: Iraq. (Keep that in mind when you hear there is a “consensus” on global “warming”! – Ed.)

Part of this revelation from Edwards may be to throw his primary opponent, Shrillary, under the bus on the issue of Iraq. However, the anti-war left’s belief that intel was doctored or manipulated takes a big blow here unless they are prepared to concede that said intel was doctored or manipulated by Bubba’s admin. Something tells me, though, that the left will react with more “Whoopi feeling” than logic. Logic and facts tend to short-circuit the left’s mental switchboard.

February 7, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, hypocrisy, Iraq, John Edwards | Leave a Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers