From the LA Slimes:
Sen. Harry Reid offered his cooperation in December when the Iraq Study Group unveiled its recommendations with a plaintive call for a bipartisan effort to change the course of the war.
“Democrats will work with our Republican colleagues,” promised the Nevada Democrat and soon-to-be majority leader, just weeks after an election that swept Democrats into the congressional majority on a wave of public frustration over Iraq.
Eight bitter months and nine major Iraq-related votes later, the meaning of Reid’s pledge has come into sharp focus: Democrats will work with any GOP lawmaker willing to vote for a mandatory troop withdrawal; other Republicans need not apply.
This bellicose, uncompromising legislative strategy — on display again this week as Reid refused to allow votes on nonbinding GOP-backed Iraq proposals — has been an obstacle to any real bipartisan compromise on the war all year. And it effectively ended any chance that a significant number of Republican lawmakers critical of the war would join with Democrats this summer on any Iraq-related legislation.
The Democratic strategy has yet to yield many tangible results. Just eight of the 250 Republicans in the House and Senate have joined with Democrats calling for a withdrawal.
Excellent leadership, Harry. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Ace has the same reaction I had: Men’s Vogue?
What the hell is that?
The hair, up close, is peppered with tiny strands of blond. Chestnut brown and so finely trimmed, mellifluous, smooth, and feathery, it could almost be a weave, the Platonic ideal as imagined by the Hair Club for Men. Along with the piercing blue eyes, slashing V-shaped smile, and a shimmering burgundy shirt tucked into stonewashed Levi’s resting low on the hips, the hair completes the man: John Edwards, a populist Adonis, a golden god of a Southern Democrat.
Ah. I see.
The post (titled “John Edwards: Totally, Totally Not Gay”) is about three weeks old, and I swear I don’t know how I missed it. But this is just too much:
Silky: Sexist WOMAN alive? LOL!
From the Freepers:
Haditha Marine Dad speaks to John Murtha
Throughout this Haditha investigation our family has believed in the innocence of our son L/Cpl Justin Sharratt- we knew he was innocent. There are things I do not understand and I would like to find the answers. We do not seek revenge, but we would like to see justice. In a conversation with Congressman John Murtha, my questions still remain unanswered. With the help of the American people, I hope to find justice.
On Wednesday morning, July 17th I spoke with Congressman John Murtha via telephone from his Washington, DC office. We had a courteous conversation. I knew what to expect from a career politician and Congressman Murtha did not disappoint. Mr. Murtha avoided answering the hard questions and I was unable to press him for the answers. I wanted the conversation to remain amicable and decided to let him speak and avoid a heated confrontation.
At no time during the dialogue would Mr. Murtha acknowledge the impending exoneration of my son. I pressed him to use the word exoneration but the best I could get was “things seem to have gone well in your son’s Article 32. The General is a fair man and I believe he will do the right thing.” I replied, “ Lt. Col Paul Ware presented a strong recommendation for exoneration and we are anticipating Lt. Gen James Mattis following this recommendation.”
Mr. Murtha asked me if I had served in the military. He recalled his visits with injured Marines, soldiers and sailors. He said he supports our troops and it is the war he does not condone. Mr Murtha believes combat operations in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our Armed Forces. The stress of combat situations has led our troops to kill innocent civilians. I pointed out to Mr. Murtha, “ Our Haditha Marines are innocent until proven guilty.” It seems he is again denying our Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Mr. Murtha replied that we have a Marine(Mendoza) testifying that innocent women and children were killed in Haditha. I retorted that he is again believing the reports of the media and Mendoza was granted immunity for his lies. Mendoza has changed his testimony at least two times. NCIS may have threatened him with deportation and denial of US citizenship. This time I scolded him, “ I witnessed their(NCIS) conduct first hand in my son’s Article 32.”
I questioned Congressman Murtha as to his statements of 17 May 2006. On national television, in front of millions of Americans, he stated “ Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” I asked him why he denied these Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Again the Congressman used his experience to side step the answer. Mr. Murtha stated his intentions were to point out the stress our military was under in Iraq. He replied we would not win the hearts of the Iraqi people by killing women and children. I again snapped, “ Our Haditha Marines have not been convicted of killing innocents and are innocent until proven guilty.”
I believe this conversation was the first step in obtaining justice for Our Haditha Marines. I did not expect Mr. Murtha to admit to or apologize for any wrongdoing in his role to railroad my son and his Marine comrades. The American people now know that his unfounded and untruthful allegations were used to further his political agenda. It is my intention to ask the Congress of the United States to censure Representative John Murtha and hold hearings to explain his conduct in respect to the Haditha incident. I will ask the American people to question his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of Our Haditha Marines. I will campaign to the voters of Pa Congressional District 12 to oust Representative Murtha from his elected office. The American people deserve better, we must demand better representation from our elected officials.
What a despicable human being Abscam Jack Murtha is! Kudos to Mr. Sharratt for putting Murtha in his place, even if Murtha is too vile and stupid to realize it.
Old Soldier reminded me of this yesterday, so my apologies for being a day late (story of my life, huh?). Yesterday was the 38th anniversary of Chappaquiddick, where, as you all know, Ted Kennedrunk killed a woman in his car by allowing her to drown while he wandered up the road and pondered the political ramifications of his actions. Full details here, if you can stomach it.
I do not ever wish physical harm on an American politician simply because they are ideological opposites. As much as I detest Reid, Pelosi, et al, I do not wish ill upon them. Having said that, God forgive me but I find myself wishing ill on Ted Kennedrunk every time that pickled murderous windbag opens his ample cakehole and bloviates about anybody being morally bankrupt liars! The fact that many on the left gravitate towards this cretin is proof positive of the inherent depravity of those people.
File this under “things I couldn’t make up if I tried”, from the Montgomery Advertiser. Headline: “Local Obesity Conference Draws Large Crowd”
From the San Franistan fishwrap:
Democratic Senate leaders knew going into Wednesday’s procedural roll call on their proposal to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq that they didn’t have the votes to win, but victory wasn’t their goal.
What else is new?
Ace does a wonderful job of ripping the mind-numbed leftist myrmidons’ “chickenhawk” reflex, in light of that little-watched MSNBC moonbat’s recent rant:
Olbermann’s Theatre of the Absurd ends with his calling upon Bush to go to Baghdad and fight “his war” himself.
Again, the chickenhawk charge — one should be willing to fight wars one advocates, yes?
But the trouble is that part of Olbermann’s, and the entire left’s, schtick is that they’re really super-tough guys after all — not cheese-eating surrender monkeys — because, while they don’t want to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, they’re just totally gung ho to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan. In fact, the subtext very often seems to be that it’s just the stubborn President Bush who is preventing them from grabbing a rifle and hopping on the next plane to Waziristan.
Question for Mr. Olbermann:
When, Sir, can we expect word of your enlistment? To fight in what is, by your own admission — nay, bold proclamation — what is in fact your war?
Breaking the MSM embargo, Ralph Peters finally makes the point I’ve been making for years.
The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier. It doesn’t say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever – although that’s what the Dems imply.
In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which “veteran warrior” wants to go get them?
Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.
Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we’ll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we’ll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We’ll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.
Oh, and Pakistan’s a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.
Barack Obama, strategist and military expert. Who knew?
I don’t believe any Democrat actually wants to fight wars against Al Qaeda, or anyone else, anywhere at all. But they claim they do, they advocate for huge invasions of 100 million strong nuclear-armed countries, and of course they vote for any stray declaration of war that should reach their desks within 60 days of an election.
So if they are all gung-ho to finally “finish the job Bush wouldn’t” in Islamabad and Karachi, I trust they know we need more troops — and the army does in fact permit liberals to serve openly as such. There is no “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule about being a leftist jagoff, I can assure them all.
When’s the big sign-up day all you super badass warriors have planned? Is it a big surprise you’re waiting to spring on the rest of the country?
I trust they’re just waiting to receive and read the new Harry Potter book, and then they’ll be training to storm the beaches of Southern Pakistan presently.
No thinking required for Olby and his ilk.
Feel free to question not just their patriotism, but their sanity. From Hot Air:
Whose water are the Democrats carrying on this? It seems to come down to two suspects — trial lawyers or the mau mauers at CAIR. Or both.
Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.
The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.
Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.
“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.
“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.
“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.
Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.
The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the “John Doe” protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling. Because, of course, racial profiling is so much worse than losing a city full of innocent people.
Update: It’s just breaking that the Democrats actually spiked the John Doe proposal in committee. They have exposed to Americans to more terrorism and the threat of lawsuit at the same time. They really ought to reap the whirlwind for this.
If the Democrats get their way, ordinary Americans like Brian Morganstern will have to weigh the threat of lawsuit when they decide whether to trust their gut when they see or hear something suspicious. Some will choose to avoid the lawsuit, and Americans will die.
As for me, I am John Doe.
From My Way News:
Former CIA operative Valerie Plame lost a lawsuit Thursday that demanded money from Bush administration officials whom she blamed for leaking her agency identity.
Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to disclose her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband’s criticism of the administration.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.
Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Plame’s lawyers said from the beginning the suit would be a difficult case to make. Public officials normally are immune from such suits filed in connection with their jobs.
Plame’s identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration’s march to war in Iraq.
Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby’s 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.
Though Bates said the case raised “important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials,” he said there was no legal basis for the suit.
Lawyers have said courts traditionally are reluctant to wade into these types of cases, particularly when Congress has established other resolutions.
In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame’s claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.
Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.
“The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson’s comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory,” Bates wrote.
“But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration’s handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants’ duties as high-level Executive Branch officials,” Bates said.
The suit was dismissed “purely on jurisdictional grounds”, huh? Well, as Texas Rainmaker (himself an attorney) points out…:
For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution.
Put that in your bong and smoke it, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.
BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink pronto. You have been warned! From Newsbusters:
Most of Dan Rather’s pontifications on today’s “Morning Joe” rolled off my back, as I flipped between his performance and that of Tiger Woods over the closing holes at Carnoustie.
But something made me sit up and take notice. At 8:34 A.M. EDT, Rather suddenly blurted out: “I’m big on personal responsibility.” And yes, he managed to do so without laughing.
God (insert deity du jour here).
This is the same guy who put demonstrably fake documents on the air in his bid to bring down Bush a few weeks before the presidential election of 2004, then stood by as Mary Mapes and three other high-level executive henchmen took the fall, then just last year continued to stand by the since debunked “fake but accurate” story? Dan freakin’ Rather was trying to convince us that he’s all about “personal responsibility”?
I am marking on my calendar that Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 1:50 p.m. EST, I have officially seen everything.
In the spirit of Bubba, I opine that “it depends on the meaning of the words ‘staunch’ and ‘Republican’”! From Michelle Malkin:
Great catch here by Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters on a Chicago Sun-Times reporter’s magical transformation of a big Democrat contributor into a “staunch Republican.” Presto change-o:
Why is it that every time the MSM writes a story about a supposedly “staunch Republican” who is vocally supporting the opposing Party, we have to wonder of its veracity? Maybe it’s because there always seems to be a few little problems with the claim of “staunchness” on the part of the MSM’s favored Party hopper du jour? And in this case, the Chicago Sun-Times story titled “GOP lawyer sold on Dems” by Jennifer Hunter, we have no better assurances than we ever do that the claimed “staunch Republican” is either very “staunch” or very “Republican.”
Sun-Times writer Hunter dug up a supposedly “staunch Republican” named Jim Ronca, a trial lawyer from Pennsylvania. Mr. Ronca, claims Hunter, is “certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.”
But there is more than that. He also says he’ll financially support Democrats, and he makes this announcement as if this is somehow an earth shattering rebuke to the GOP, or so the Sun-Times wishes us to believe.
Here is the kicker from Hunter’s story:
“I’m not only going to vote Democratic, I’m going to financially support the Democrats,” Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. “The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment.”
Judging from his public donation record, though, this “staunch Republican” also apparently believes that Republicans everywhere else are an “embarrassment,” too. Check out the majority of his political contributions:
$1,000 Harris Wofford (Democrat, PA) 6/22/1994
$250 Charles Oberly (Democrat, PA) 10/3/1994
$500 Edward Kennedy (Democrat, MA) 11/16/1995
$250 Stewart Greenleaf (Republican, PA) 12/29/1999
$250 Patrick Casey (Democrat, PA) 6/3/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 6/13/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 9/15/2000
$500 Arlen Specter (Republican, PA) 11/5/2001
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 3/30/2004
$2,000 John Kerry (Democrat, MA) 5/27/2004
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 8/23/2005
$1,000 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/13/2006
$500 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/30/2005
$500 Bruce Braley 9/5/2006
Conservatives on the Internet asked Hunter to explain. Her reaction? A column complaining about: 1) how mean the Internet watchdogs are; 2) how readers should blame her editor, not her; and 3) how one registered Republican just decided he’s supporting Hillary, so no one should complain about her embarrassingly inaccurate description of Ronca as a “staunch Republican.”
The thanks you get…
Is it possible that Republicans are fed up with Bush and the party’s current “leaders” to the point that they’re leaving the party? Of course it is! But to define a Democrat trial lawyer who has been giving the majority of his money to Democrats before Bush got elected as a “staunch Republican” is disingenuous and a bastardization of the English language that ol’ Bubba can appreciate.
This is a dishonest tactic often seen with the left: they pretend to be Republicans or disenfranchised former Republicans so as to give themselves a level of credibility to which they are not due. No self-respecting Republican would vote for any of the Marxists masquerading as moderate Democrats, even if he hated Bush and other Republicans so badly that he’s counting down the days until January 20, 2009.
Excellent column by Randy Barnett in Opinion Journal. Please read the whole thing, an excerpt of which is here:
While the number of Americans who self-identify as “libertarian” remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres–what is sometimes called “economic conservatism” and “social liberalism.” But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.
During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened “because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years,” Mr. Giuliani’s retort–that this was the first time he had heard that “we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11″–sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.
The exchange also drew attention to Mr. Paul, who until then had been a rather marginal member of the 10-man Republican field. One striking feature of Mr. Paul’s debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him–even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty–to the war.
This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is “no.”
First and foremost, libertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true “liberty” and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others.
But here is the rub. While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly.
Please, read it. It’s great stuff!
The Breck Girl, he of the $1200 ‘do and energy hog multi-million dollar mansion, tries again to relate to the “common man” in the “other America” in which he doesn’t live. From BTN:
Silky Tells Matthews That Being Poor Is Not Being able To Eat At Restaurants
07.17.2007 – 04:03 PM | Greg Hengler
Chris Matthews really strokes the Silky Pony’s mane here. First, Silky is invited by Matthews to debate on Hardball against other Dems but his Silkiness says that he will agree to only if ALL candidates will be invited. This coming after the secret conversation caught on live mic between the Silkster and Hillary. How fair of him. Next, Silks answers Matthews’ question: “Tell the people what it’s like to be poor?” Silky tells the cliff notes version of his often-told story of leaving a restaurant as a young lad after his father saw how he could not afford to eat there. That’s poor! Not eating out. Wow, if Silky keeps on his “Poverty Tour” everyone will be able to eat at Spago’s.
This guy is a virtual cornucopia of material for the blogosphere, isn’t he?
Large Cache of Weapons Discovered In Dallas Apartment Near Federal Building; Fundamentalist Christian Sought For Questioning
Well, I assume he’s a fundamentalist Christian. They keep telling me those are the sorts of violent zealots who stock up on Armageddon levels of firepower.
Given that the tenant keeps traveling back and forth to the Middle East, I can only assume he’s part of some sort of Biblical/Left Behind Christotourism travel package.Federal sources tell CBS 11 News that law enforcement officers have confiscated a large cache of weapons found in an apartment near the federal building in downtown Dallas.
Police are still taking inventory of all the weapons seized. Among those discovered were two AK-47 rifles, an Uzi 9 millimeter submachine gun, a TEC-9 submachine gun, a 40 millimeter ordnance launcher, a handheld ordnance launcher, and about 500 rounds of ammunition.
Police seized the weapons even though they say it’s possible for all of them to be legal.
Child pornography was also found in the apartment, which could lead to criminal charges.
Authorities tell us the tenant travels to the Middle East frequently and just returned from there this morning.
However, authorities say there is no reason to suspect terrorism as a motive.
Nah, no reason at all.
Just because a pedophile likes to stock up on machine guns and ordnance launchers doesn’t mean he’s all about terrorism, now does it, you judgmental b#stards? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Anyone tired yet of the “culture of corruption” hypocrisy? Me too. From Politico:
What’s a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?
Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.
Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who’s never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists – since, hey, it’s getting like a million bucks or something.
Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn’t have a clue.
After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn’t find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, “Does the center currently exist?”
“At this time, I do not know,” the Indiana Democrat replied. “But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it.”
As if that wasn’t bad enough…
And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.
Despite the money’s uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake’s measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.
As I said, what’s one million dollars to a member of Congress?
UPDATE: I failed to report last night that a certificate filed with the requested funds says the money is actually earmarked to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, a nonprofit technological consulting firm. A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha’s reelection campaign since April 2002.
Abscam Jack, still crazy after all these years. Quite a deal for Abscam Jack and DeVos, wouldn’t you say? DeVos gives Jack $7k for his re-election campaign, and gets a nice cool million (not a dime of which is out of Abscam Jack’s pocket) as a return on his investment. I guess it’s a good thing we’ve got those principled, uncorrupted Dems running the show now, huh?
Rep. Don Young attacked his fellow Republicans on the House floor Wednesday, as he defended education funds allocated to his home-state of Alaska.
“You want my money, my money,” Young stridently declared before warning conservatives that, “Those who bite me will be bitten back.”
Young took extreme exception to an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) to strike money in a spending bill for native Alaskan and Hawaiian educational programs.
And lest we forget, Young, who used to chair the House Transportation Committee, is responsible for the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” a proposed span connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, with the tiny island of Gravina that would have cost $315 million – and eventually came to symbolize profligate spending under Republican rule.
Oh, and he has spent more than $250,000 on legal fees so far this year at the same time that federal investigators probe some of his campaign’s biggest contributors.
Garrett refrained from asking for an official reprimand, but he and other conservative Republicans took after Young’s declaration that the funds in question represented his money. The assembled conservatives then launched into a general attack on earmarked spending.
“We legally steal,” argued Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), defending her colleague from New Jersey. (Finally, some refreshing honesty from DC! – Ed.)
Members of the conservative Republican Study Committee gave Garrett a standing ovation later in the day during the group’s weekly meeting, an aide to one conservative member said.
Get it through your head, dipsh#t: my money from Florida sure as hell does NOT belong to you in Alaska! Tax money is the people’s money, you corrupt self-serving piece of caribou crap, and don’t you ever freakin’ forget it!
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
“I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
“‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”
“But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”
“Age-appropriate” for five-year-olds, huh? I can see it now: “Little Johnny has a corndog, and he wants to put it in Little Suzy’s lunchbox. Here, let’s demonstrate!” Of course, the San Franistan edition would feature Little Adam and Little Nigel trying to roast weenies during a camping retreat, but I digress.
Karma…it’s not just for breakfast anymore. God forgive me, but this made me laugh harder than Bill Clinton does whenever taking an oath (marital oath, oath of office, oath to tell the truth in court, etc.). From Moonbattery:
It’s official: terrorist Nobel Peace Prize–winner Yasser Arafat died of AIDS. As Mark Steyn notes, this wasn’t a big surprise to everyone:
[Arafat having died of AIDS was] pretty much an open secret in diplomatic circles. I’m in Madrid at the moment, and it prompted many knowing chortles among political types I mentioned it to today, along with fond reminiscences about Yasser’s corps of hunky blond Scandinavian bodyguards — an odd bunch of chaps to find in Ramallah, but presumably they were doing the jobs Palestinians won’t do. (Although I bet the Nobel prize committee would do it! – Ed.)
James Lewis observes that the Western media must have known all about it, but kept it quiet for fear of damaging the postmortem reputation of their favorite terrorist. He accuses Arafat of being a Typhoid Mary of AIDS, knowingly spreading the deadly disease as he indulged his homosexual lusts. This would hardly be out of character for a malignant narcissist like Arafat, who has made it obvious that other humans exist only for his own pleasure and enrichment; their suffering means nothing. Look what he did to Israelis with his terror wars, and to Palestinians by deliberately holding them in poverty, resolutely scuttling any chance of peace and squirreling away Western aid in his own Swiss bank accounts.
This is the kind of guy who gets awarded the Nobel Peace Prize nowadays, thanks to moonbattery.
What do the bloodthirsty camelhumping jihadists who idolzed him think of such un-Islamic (and punishable by death) behavior? Prediction: “It’s a Zionist lie! Let’s riot and blow stuff up! Le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le!“
No, not defense spending. From Opinion Journal:
The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget It wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.
In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration’s budget request for Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight.
OLMS, the Labor office that watches over union disclosure forms, says that last year 93% of unions met its reporting requirements. But the other 7% deserve scrutiny. Union members deserve to know how their dues are spent. They might want to know that in 2005, the National Education Association gave more than $65 million to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and dozens of other liberal advocacy groups that have nothing to do with the interests of teachers. In 2006, 49 individuals employed at the national AFL-CIO headquarters were paid more than $130,000. “Union members are also discovering the extent to which their dues money is funding lavish trips for union officials to luxury resorts and other expensive perks unrelated to collective bargaining,” says Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.
Investigations conducted by OLMS also have led to an impressive list of successful prosecutions of union officials. Just last week Willie Haynes, a member of the Saginaw, Mich., City Council who also served as a United Auto Workers financial secretary, pleaded guilty to falsifying his union local’s reports. In May, Chuck Crawley, a former Teamster’s local president in Houston, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for stuffing a ballot box so he could be elected president of his union local and embezzling dues money.
…Union officials have publicly stated that they believe many of OLMS’s requirements are burdensome and unnecessary. Since unions helped elect the current Congress, they are now seeking action on their agenda, which ranges from holding fewer secret ballot elections to cutting back on the oversight that is at the heart of the 1959 union “bill of rights” that JFK championed.
Once again, the Dems have their dirty little hands in the “culture of corruption” cookie jar.
Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler’s Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.
“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,” Ellison told the group, according to The Minneapolis Star Tribune. “After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.”
So he’s a Truther, right? You know, one of those paranoid asshats who think that Bush destroyed the Twin Towers (and part of the Pentagon and made a crater in PA)? Sounds like it…until he gets all John Kerry on us:
During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the 350-member Atheists for Human Rights: “I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you.”
Oops…too late. Consider yourself dismissed, nut-ball.
If anything, I’m consistent! From Politico:
What kinds of things do you think of when you hear “communications consulting”?
Speechwriting? Message strategy?
Well, “communications consulting” is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as “a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men’s grooming and spa services.”
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the payments — actually two separate $150 charges — were for makeup, though he said the former Massachusetts governor had only one session with Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif. That was before the May 3 Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., co-sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico.
“We used them once but booked time twice and still had to render payment for the appointment time,” said Madden, who said the disbursement was listed as “communications consulting” because it was paid from the communications division’s budget.
If I’m gonna whack Johnboy Edwards for being a lavishly spending primperdonna, then I’m gonna poke fun at the Mittster, too. Seriously, “a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men’s grooming and spa services”?
I’m swamped today, so here are a few reading assignments for your discussing pleasures (not “disgusting pleasures”…who do you think comments here, Barney Frank? LOL!):
The wussification of the UK continues. From the Sun via Michelle Malkin:
FURY erupted last night after Sir Winston Churchill was axed from school history lessons.
Britain’s cigar-chomping World War Two PM — famed for his two-finger victory salute — was removed from a list of figures secondary school children must learn about.
Instead they will be taught about “relevant” issues such as global warming and drug dangers. Churchill’s grandson, Tory MP Nicholas Soames, branded the move “total madness.”
The decision to axe Churchill is part of a major shake-up aimed at dragging the national curriculum into the 21st century, it was claimed last night.
But the plan — hatched by advisers — angered schools secretary Ed Balls, who vowed to probe ALL the changes to the curriculum.
The proposals will see traditional timetables torn up, with pupils focusing on modern “relevant” topics such as drug and booze abuse, climate change and GM foods.
Churchill — voted the greatest ever Briton — goes off the required lessons list, along with Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin and Martin Luther King.
There will also be no need to mention the Wars of the Roses, Elizabeth I or Henry VIII.
Looks like the NEA here in America has gotten a hold of schools abroad, as well.
From the Seattlestan fishwrap:
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said Thursday his use of a Spanish word that some contend is a slur against homosexuals was meant to be playful but apologized to anyone who was offended.
With critics revisiting the statement he made on a radio program a year ago, Richardson questioned the timing of their comments.
“My record is the strongest among the presidential candidates on gay rights issues and I’m puzzled by the timing of this. When it happened a year ago, nobody seemed to think it was terribly important. Now it surfaces,” he told The Associated Press in an interview.
“It’s probably a sign from other campaigns that they are little worried about me,” he said.
Yeah, those impressive polling numbers (3%) have Shrillary, Osamabama, and Silky Pony quaking. Continuing:
Richardson, a Hispanic and the governor of New Mexico, was a guest on Don Imus’ syndicated radio program on March 29, 2006. Imus, who later lost his job over making racial comments, jokingly said one of his staffers suggested Richardson was “not really Hispanic.”
Richardson replied in Spanish that if the staffer believes that, then he is a “maricon.”
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says the word means “faggot” in Spanish.
In a statement this week, Richardson said that in the Spanish he grew up speaking, “the term means simply ‘gay,’ not positive or negative.”
He told the AP on Thursday: “It was a playful exchange between me and Don Imus that was not intended to demean anybody, but if I offended anybody, I apologize.”
A few observations, if I may:
1. The lesson here is clear: if you’re going to slur someone from a P.C. “protected” group, just do it in Spanish. ¡Muchos gracias!
2. “Macaca” moment? Oops…wrong party. The MSM’s got little to say about it beyond this. But that’s different, right?
3. Richardson was “playfully” saying “faggot”, which I was unaware could be done. This will no doubt come as a huge surprise to Ann Coulter.
4. Someone doubts Richardson’s Latino “street cred”, and Richardson calls that person a queer…but he didn’t mean it in a “positive or negative” way. Right.
5. The left says that gays are fine and dandy, then they smear anyone they think or imply might be gay. Geez, pick a talking point and stick to it, will ya?
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Thursday derided President Bush’s commutation of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison term even as black men routinely serve time behind bars.
All eight Democratic hopefuls and a lone Republican candidate, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, addressed the NAACP convention. The Democrats focused their criticism on the administration’s record on race relations and poverty.
“We know we have more work to do when Scooter Libby gets no prison time and a 21-year-old honor student, who hadn’t even committed a felony, gets 10 years in prison,” Obama said to loud cheers.
Aides said Obama was referring to Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia man serving a 10-year prison sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. A judge last month ordered Wilson to be freed, but prosecutors are blocking the order.
While I agree with Obama’s take on the Genarlow Wilson incident (it’s a crying shame what miscarriage of justice occurred there), I find it repulsive that he has to resort to race-baiting by comparing an unrelated case to Libby. Had Genarlow Wilson been white, would Obama have made that comment or analogy? Of course not, for it would not have had the same racial hysteria overtones.
By the way, Silky Pony must have another about face like he did with Iraq:
Edwards’ call for felons’ voting rights to be restored also received loud cheers, although as a North Carolina senator in 2002 he voted against a bill allowing felons the right to vote in federal elections.
Well, he was Waffles’ running mate, so he must have learned from the best.
I don’t have to tell you which party this moonbat legislator comes from, do I? From Joisey:
A New Jersey senator wants to make it illegal to sell or give to anyone under age 18 toy guns that look so realistic they can be mistaken for a real firearm.
“The margin between a child’s stupid mistake and a tragic ending is far too thin,” said Sen. Nicholas Scutari.
Scutari, D-Union, introduced the proposal in late June and plans to push it when the Legislature reconvenes late this year. He said the bill stems from an incident in a Union Township where four students were suspended after bringing a cap gun to school.
“We need to stress to our children that guns are not toys, but deadly weapons which should always be regarded with extreme caution and handled with respect,” Scutari said. “Restricting access to imitation firearms will help to drive that point home.”
Actually, moron, guns are not toys, but TOY guns are TOYS! Continuing:
Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison.
Little Johnny buys a water pistol with his allowance and winds up in the hoosegow. Brilliant.
New Jersey must have officially run out of all other problems with which to deal, if they’re now turning to banning toy guns.
Those crazy Euros are at it again. From al-Reuters:
A “fat tax” on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.
Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.
The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.
The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
“A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease,” the study concluded.
The team from Oxford’s Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living.
…and those taxes have been failures at that for which they were intended. We have cig and booze taxes here, too, with similar results: millions of people still smoke and drink. All these silly “sin taxes” do is line the pockets of Big Guvmint. Besides, if that 20 oz. cold one at AJ’s Sports Bar costs $3.00, would you order fewer if the suggested 17.5% tax were added, bringing the total to $3.53? Me neither.
Aside from the obvious “Nanny State” argument, there’s another argument to be made here. Whenever government gets it mitts on our money through taxes on cigarettes or alcohol, they almost always say that they will use the tax money on health insurance government programs, usually for kids. Well, what if the purported desired effect is achieved, i.e. more people finally quit smoking or drinking? That would, by default, mean less money would be available to fund these new health insurance programs! Gasp! Why, how could you former smokers and former drinkers be so selfish as to deprive children of their health care? Do your patriotic duty, by
God (insert deity of preference here) and get out there and destroy your own health so you can fund the programs that preserve the health of others!
I work out and eat healthy foods because I choose to do so. If you don’t live similarly, then who in the Sam Hill would I be to demand that you do? I would be Big Guvmint, that’s who.
This is juicy in several different yummy flavors! Get this, from Newsbusters:
Thursday’s edition of “Good Morning America” featured a Diane Sawyer anecdote that revealed the low opinion Americans have of journalists. After wrapping up a segment on people who avoid jury duty, the ABC co-host recounted the “hurtful” experience she had in a courtroom:
[Link to video]
[Wrap up of segment on getting out of jury duty.]
Diane Sawyer: “You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, ‘Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?’ And I said, ‘That’s what journalists do.’ And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I’ve ever had.”
I don’t know what’s funnier: the jury’s laughter (and laugh they should), or that Dim Diane was clueless and naive enough to think that normal Americans hold her and her MSM brethren in such high esteem.
That’s outrageous! I mean, I could have sworn I’ve used those words a helluva lot more times than that!
The rating isn’t based on racy photos, on threats, or on foul language (since I avoid the former and try to keep the latter to a minimum). Interestingly, according to this same “rating” site, my blog is more risqué and less tame than the Kos kooks’ site (they got a PG-13) and the DUmb#ss Underground site (rated G??)! You ever see the level of profanity, veiled threats, and vitriol there? Yikes.
Hat tip to RV for alerting me to this.
Many of the points below have been made here by me and commenters, but this is a good way to tie all the points together. From Bruce Chapman:
Liberals are hailing a report that calls for federal regulations to end the “structural imbalance in political talk radio.” Two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Free Press, complain that more than 90 percent of the programs on talk radio feature conservative hosts and themes while only 10 percent are “progressive.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has promised to examine the report’s recommendations for possible legislation and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says flatly, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
That really is a good, old-fashioned attitude, all right. But under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as “the public affairs ghetto.” Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses.
But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is “imbalanced” and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.
At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation’s 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.
But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new “Fairness Doctrine,” perhaps conservatives should embrace it — providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some “progressives” throwing down their papers in disgust?)
Let’s start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don’t make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.
Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let’s see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative — not the most egregious and unpopular — to reply to the liberal voice.
In addition to cable broadcasting, the new Fairness Doctrine also should reach into the press. I know print media have always been exempt, but, hey, judicial precedents change. Newspapers and news magazines not only use the public mails to ship some of their goods (often at subsidized rates), but they also run their delivery trucks over public roads and park their corner coin-boxes on public sidewalks. The current philosophy of government seems to be, if it moves, the government has a say in it, so why should newspapers get away with sitting in aloof Olympian judgment on everyone else?
It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let’s just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.
It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural “fairness” still further — to Hollywood.
Or maybe the left would be smart to drop the matter altogether.
“Smart” and “left” should rarely go in the same sentence, Bruce.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett