Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Former ambassador: Disarm America

And you leftards accuse Bush of wanting a police state? Excerpt from the Toledo Blade:

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.
It would have to be the case that the term “hunting weapon” did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

Yep, nothing jerks a tear from the ol’ eye like such naked displays of pursuit of freedom: forming special police squads who invade every American home to search for guns; police stop-and-frisk people at random (so long as we’re not profiling, I guess), incarcerate people for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

You’ve heard the expression that “if you ban guns, only criminals will have them”? Well, under this #sshat’s scenario, otherwise innocent Americans who don’t submit to his police state will become instant criminals. Only in the backwards and logically-starved world of diplomacy would this moonbatty idea make any sense.

April 27, 2007 Posted by | gun rights, moonbats | 1 Comment

Utah Republican: Satan causes illegal immigration

Un-freakin’-believable. From KUTV:

If you really want to blame someone for trying to destroy the United States, point the finger at… Satan?

The devil, Lucifer… whatever you want to call it, one Utah Republican says it is he who is trying to bring the USA down.

And Satan’s apparent weapon of choice: Allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah County District 65 Chairman Don Larsen has submitted a formal resolution to oppose the devil’s plan to destroy the country — to be discussed this weekend at the Utah County Republican Convention.

“In order for Satan to establish his ‘New World Order’ and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S.,” Larsen’s resolution states. “[It is] insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.”

Larsen’s proposal to defeat Satan? Close the borders to illegal immigrants to “prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.”

Dude, I’m with you on the illegal immigration and stealth invasion stuff, but you lost me on how that’s Satan’s fault. The Prince of Darkness isn’t going to bring down America by war or pestilence or famine or anything like that. No, Beelzebub’s weapon of choice is…illegal immigration.

Seriously…dude…shut up.

April 27, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, wingnuts | Leave a Comment

"The High Cost of Easily Accessible Beans"

Van Helsing at Moonbattery nails this one out of the park.

It is common knowledge that beans cause the dreadful phenomenon known as flatulence, a major contributor to the global warming that will soon embroil us all in a sweaty apocalypse. Nonetheless, beans are readily available to anyone who wants to purchase them, despite the absence of explicit Constitutional protection as we have for firearms. So far as I know, beans are not even regulated.

Now we see the consequences:
…
The picture is of movie star Hugh Grant, assaulting a photographer with a tub of baked beans. Grant was subsequently arrested.

It’s time for us to ask ourselves: would this incident have occurred if beans were subject to prudent federal regulation?

They can have my black beans when they pry the can from my cold, dead fingers! :-D

April 27, 2007 Posted by | global warming, gun rights, humor | Leave a Comment

Washington comPost borrows page from CBS News

You know, sources “too good to check”? The post at the American Thinker gives the relevant excerpts and timelines, and I encourage you to read it. Here’s the summary:

Jessica Lynch was on Capitol Hill to talk about her experience in Iraq as a POW and subsequently as a media darling. This article from the Charleston Daily Mail typifies the coverage given to this topic by the media for years now. It portrays Lynch as a victim of military propaganda that pushed her forward as a hero.

The recent hearing was to cover Lynch’s 2003 kidnapping and rescue in Iraq, which the Department of Defense painted as a story of heroism, despite a differing account from Lynch.

There are two facts that get left out of this type of reporting:

a) Jessica Lynch is a hero just by serving her country whether she fired a shot or was knocked out immediately during the ambush that injured her severely and

b) the story of her shoot-out with Iraqi forces was not a product of the US military but of the US media.

The US media created this recounting of her exploits from vague, unofficial statements by “undisclosed officials” and having been revealed as rumor mongers started looking for someone to blame. Who else would they pin it on but the US military?

We all know it is hard to prove a negative, in this case that the US military did not create the shoot-out scenario reported by the media. So we have to instead ask questions. If the US military did so, who specifically did it? Do we have a name in all this media hype about the misleading Pentagon reporting? Where was the claim first made? Who was the source?

(Proof that the Washington Post was the source here)

So let’s get this straight, The Washington Post single-sourced this story from one official that they couldn’t even identify. Ask yourself why they couldn’t identify a military official praising a soldier. Is that really a secret? This isn’t a whistle blower or Bush Administration insider. It would more than likely be an officer or NCO at the tactical operations center if this person existed.

So why couldn’t The Washington Post name the source? The answer is obvious; because the reporters don’t even know who it was, or if the incident even occurred. It sounds very much like one person’s ruminations in passing, chatting about rumors from unofficial sources. Then The Washington Post ran with the information despite army officials warning them about the veracity of such rumors. And this is the military’s fault? Are you kidding me?

Isn’t the media supposed to be superior to citizen journalists because of all the editorial safeguards and fact checking? But yet in this reporting, one unidentified source who may indeed be a fiction – a literary device to whom to attribute overheard conversation – trumped the military spokesperson. I challenge The Washington Post to identify this source so that this person can be questioned in the current proceedings.

Allahpundit quips that an alternate headline could be “Media outraged at military for not doing more to prevent media’s awful journalism.”

April 27, 2007 Posted by | media bias | Leave a Comment

Liz Edwards: Bush rushed to VT instead of NO due to race

It is becoming increasingly more difficult for me to sympathize with Mrs. Silky Pony for her cancer when she continues to foment the cancer of racism in America. From Hot Air:

Elizabeth Edwards, playing the race card, says the President went to the Virginia Tech campus sooner than he went to see the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina because of race and the “prettier picture” (that’s a euphemism for white people).

This is BDS at its finest. These people complain President Bush waited too long to go to Katrina and now they’re complaining he went to Virginia Tech too soon. And they make race part of the issue both times, even though he’s appointed two black Secretaries of State and held on to Norm Mineta far too long past his sell-by date.

If the electorate can’t tell what a fake Elizabeth Edwards and her husband are by now, there is something seriously wrong.

It’s hard for me to image why someone with a terminal disease like Liz Edwards has would want to spend her last days on Earth being a hateful, crazy #ss race-hustling moonbat.

April 27, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, John Edwards, moonbats | Leave a Comment

Al Qaeda quoting Reid’s defeatism

You lefties can spin this all you like, but the inescapable conclusion is that Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader of the United States, has emboldened Al Qaeda, who is the greatest enemy to America today (and yes, moonbats, they are more of an enemy than George Bush!).

From Weasel Zippers:

Islamic State Of Iraq: The Cross Worshippers And Their Henchmen Plans Have Collapsed Apr 25, 2007 By Ubaidah Al-Saif, Jihad Unspun Arabic Source: Al-Fajr Media As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader (sic) Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

Will someone explain to me how Reid’s actions don’t meet the Constitution’s definition of “treason”?

April 27, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Reid, treason | Leave a Comment

Lieberman blasts Senate’s Iraqi Surrender Bill

Joe wastes his time by using facts. Excerpt from NRO:

My colleague from Nevada (Reid – Ed.), in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Joe, you’ve been a Democrat long enough to know that your guys don’t ever need evidence to support anything. Evidence gets in the way of feelings.

April 27, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Lieberman | Leave a Comment

Dems’ big #ss carbon footprints heading to debate

From Newsday:

A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.

They rake Bush and skeptics who haven’t swigged their Chicken Little Kool-Aid over the coals for his not doing enough to combat global “warming”, yet they hypocritically contribute to the (perceived) problem themselves.

Also, about that “culture of corruption” thingy:

Democrat John Edwards, for example, regularly uses a jet owned by Dallas trial lawyer Fred Baron, who is also the finance chairman of his presidential campaign. His campaign pays first-class rate for those flights. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also flies on corporate jets and pays first-class rates.

Under FEC reimbursement regulations, a candidate flying in a corporate or union jet must pay the first-class rate unless the flight’s destination does not have scheduled commercial service. In that case, the candidate must pay the cost of chartering the plane.

For candidates who are now eschewing corporate jets, the cost difference can be significant.

For example, a one-way first class ticket on United Airlines with four days advance notice is $694 per person. A typical one-way charter flight on a small Lear jet seating six people would cost about $9,000.

Critics of corporate jet flights for politicians say the difference in cost makes a private jet an extraordinary special benefit and can give corporate executives or union leaders unusual access to a candidate.

But remember: a special interest isn’t really a special interest if it’s a Democrat interest.

Not that the left’s hypocrisy is astounding to me, but I must point it out nonetheless.

April 27, 2007 Posted by | corruption, global warming, hypocrisy | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers