Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Rosie O finds cure for cancer: Just tell the truth

Now she freakin’ tells us! From Hot Air:

If you believe fire can’t melt steel, I guess this isn’t too much of a stretch:

Mike writes:

Did you really tell a cancer patient that liars get cancer?

i had a conversation
with a friend/co worker
about how the physical and spiritual r connected

that the darkness is where disease lives

all humans lie

Allahpundit refers to this before-seen phenomenon as the “progressive ‘liar’ theory of oncology.”

If only she would have let the world know this years ago, think of the lives we could have saved! Family members and friends of mine who have died from cancer would still be alive today if only they hadn’t been such deceptively good liars. I mean, I didn’t think these people near and dear to me were so dishonest, but using Rosie O’Qaeda’s pretzel logic, they must have been. How disappointing!

Question, then, for Dr. Round Mound of Sound: what kind of cancer does Bill Clinton have? Were I a betting man, I’d guess prostate, but I suppose it’s in poor taste to venture a guess as to the type of cancer that Bubba must surely have.

For those of you on the left, the above is sarcasm. I’m trying to say that the tinfoil hat that Rosie O’Qaeda wears must have cut a little too deeply into her head to make her say such an outrageously stupid thing. Then again, looking at her track record, I’d say such idiocy is par for the course for that wench.

August 20, 2007 Posted by | moonbats | 3 Comments

Silky Pony helps to foreclose on poor New Orleans homeowners

Silky’s been telling anyone who will halfway listen to him (which, judging by his position in the polls, means “hardly anyone”) that the current state of New Orleans is Bush’s fault and that the Silkmesiter will fix everything himself. He of the “Two Americas” speech has indeed acted on the Chocolate City, though I suspect his supporters (both of them) and his handlers didn’t quite expect it to be handled this way:

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards has investing ties to subprime lenders who are foreclosing on victims of Katrina, according to a report published Friday.

The Wall Street Journal said there are 34 homes in New Orleans that face foreclosure from the subprime unit of Fortress Investment Group. Edwards has about $16 million in Fortress, a hedge fund and private equity manager, the newspaper said.

Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, has been a vocal critic of subprime lenders and told the Journal that he would assist homeowners in New Orleans who face foreclosure from businesses linked to Fortress or who have already lost their homes.

Sure, he’s willing to assist homeowners, after he’s assisted himself first. While he bellyaches about the predatory practices of subprime mortgage lenders, he’s getting richer and richer off of said predators. Silky’s best bet is for Ann Coulter to say something about this so he can go start another fundraiser of the “she-devil” and get the attention off of his shamelessness and hypocrisy.

August 20, 2007 Posted by | hypocrisy, John Edwards, shameful | 1 Comment

Quote of the day

Break out the violin for this jaw-dropper:

A Brazilian man who agreed to be identified by his first name initial and last name, Santos, 27, knows well the risks he takes. He can be stopped by the police and sent to court, but what he fears the most is that any encounter with the law can lead to deportation.

And yet he drives.

“I feel like a soldier who has been sent to war and is forced to kill people,” said Santos, who drives with an expired Brazilian driver’s license. “I don’t have a choice.”…

Oh. My. God (insert deity du jour here). Being a criminal alien and driving without a license (two crimes…so much for that “law-abiding folks” meme! – Ed.) are both akin to being a soldier in a war and killing people? Un. Freakin. Believable!

(Sidebar: the story identifies the man as a “Brazilian man who agreed to be identified by his first name initial and last name”, then listed only one name: Santos. Now while I did go to Florida State University, I’m pretty sure they taught us in Remedial Math 101 the concept of one versus two. I only see one name there: Santos. Is that supposed to be like McLovin or something?)

August 20, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, quote of the day | Leave a Comment

Dubya and his amnesty minions trying to sabotage enforcement?

I’m not totally sure I buy this, but I have to concede that it makes perfect sense. From Kaus at Salon:

Bush–You Asked for It, Yahoos! Is the recently announced Bush crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants

1) a desperate, Lindsey Graham-like make-up call to placate conservatives by enforcing existing laws (a possible trust-building precondition to winning some of them over to legalization of currently-illegal residents) or

2) a Leninesque attempt to heighten the contradictions and create pressure for legalization by demonstrating to business and the media that actually enforcing the existing immigration laws is intolerable?

Day In/Day Out wonders too. … If it’s option 2, of course, then Homeland Security might intentionally choose to enforce the law in as clumsy, heartless, and lawsuit-inspiring a fashion as possible, in order to create the maximum number of negative headlines. … Certainly the case for the paranoid option (2) was enhanced by the LAT ‘s report on the crackdown, featuring bitter you-asked-for-it-now-you’re-going-to-get-it quotes from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff:

Chertoff acknowledged. “There will be some unhappy consequences for the economy out of doing this,” he said in an interview with The Times.

Chertoff said he had little sympathy for businesses that hire illegal workers, saying they should have seen the crackdown coming after the Senate failed to pass immigration reform. “We have been crystal clear about what the consequences would be,” he said. …[snip]

Chertoff suggested that once the provisions had been in force for a while, Congress would see immigration reform in a different light.

“Everybody who criticized comprehensive immigration reform for being too complex, maybe now they’re going to realize it’s complex because there are a lot of interconnected pieces to this and when you try to deal with only one corner of it, you wind up with a huge impact on something else,” he said. [E.A.]

Bush Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez is also quoted saying, in effect, that the effort he just launched will lead to disaster. (“We do not have the workers our economy needs … Ultimately congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”)

Do you trust these men to implement the plan skillfully when they have an explicit interest in causing pain? For example, wouldn’t it be better to focus enforcement on new hires whose Social Security numbers don’t match, rather than disruptively forcing the firing of existing workers who may have been here for decades? But of course, if it’s strategy #2 Bush is pursuing, then destroying the lives of decades-long residents exactly what Chertoff should be focusing on, because that’s what will generate the horror stories that might fuel a new push for amnesty. … It’s a new twist on the old Washington Monthly “Firemen First” Principle, in which agencies defend their budgets by making cuts in the most disruptive manner possible, typically by firing firemen and cops. …

I’m paranoid. I don’t trust Chertoff–he seems personally embittered by his “comprehensive” humiliation. I’d focus on new hires, not existing workers. But so far the anti-comprehensive camp–including, for example, Mark Krikorian, Polipundit and Terry Jeffrey–thinks highly of the Bush crackdown. Will they wake up in a few months and realize they’ve been snookered, or Lenined? …

So what do you think?  Do you think BushCo (to use the nutroots’ term) is trying to botch enforcement in the public eye so as to garner sympathy for amnesty?

August 20, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration | 5 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers