Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Silky Pony: All black men will be dead or in prison

I guess when you’re forced to accept federal matching funds for your campaign, it’s safe to say that you’re not doing very well.  Nevertheless, the Breck Girl is doing his level best to stay in the headlines.  When he’s not promising to cure cancer and make the paralyzed walk, the soothsayer notes thusly:

Edwards: ‘Pretty Soon We’re Not Going to Have a Young African-American Male Population in America.’

Asked about what he could do about “inner-city kids partaking in violence” at the MTV/MySpace Forum yesterday, Democratic candidate John Edwards offered an apocalyptic prediction for young black males:

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Hyperbole much? Despite popular misperception and those who find it a convenient talking point to illustrate inescapable racism, there are more young African-American men in college than in prison. In 2005, according to the Census Bureau, there were 864,000 black men in college. According to Justice Department statistics, there were 802,000 in federal and state prisons and jails; between the ages of 18 and 24, however, black men in college outnumber those incarcerated by 4 to 1. 

Dude.  Please.  Stop.  Seriously.  Drink a large jug of STFU juice and go away already. If the good people of your own state didn’t want your crap anymore, what makes you think anyone else does either?

What an incredibly racist thing to say! I don’t have to tell you what the outrage would have been (and the coverage it would have received) had a Republican said the same thing, do I?

September 28, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, John Edwards | 7 Comments

Pelosi: It’s unfair to deny criminal aliens in-state tuition

This woman is “loco en la cabeza”! From USA Today:

Pelosi also touted legislation known as the DREAM Act that would make it easier for some illegal immigrants to receive higher education benefits. She spoke at a conference that drew more than 5,000 students for activities designed to inspire careers in science and technology.

The DREAM Act would eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing illegal immigrants with lower in-state tuition rates. It also would allow permanent residency for illegal immigrants who entered the country as children and have been admitted to an institution of higher education.

“It just isn’t fair,” Pelosi said. “Those young people who came to America one way or another … their opportunities are curtailed because of the situation. And it’s not only harmful to them — it’s harmful to the country.”

Oh. My. God (insert politically correct deity here). I’ll tell you what’s unfair, Madame San Fransicko Treat. It’s unfair that an American citizen from one state has to pay out-of-state tuition at a college or university located in another state, but a criminal alien who is a citizen of neither the country nor the state that he/she invaded gets to pay an in-state tuition rate! In other words, when I moved from Tennessee to attend Florida State University, I had to fork out some bucks for out-of-state tuition. Under the DREAM crap, I’d still have to, but Pepé the lettuce picker who is here illegally would be treated as a Floridian. If that’s not effed up, I don’t know what is.

Also, while we’re at it, let’s address Peloco’s little P.C. euphemism “Those young people who came to America one way or another”, shall we? That same term can also be interpreted (and properly so) as “by hook or by crook”, or “in flagrant violation of federal immigration law.” Peloco is saying that she doesn’t give a rodent’s rump if someone is a criminal alien, so long as they get the tuition break. Enforcing our laws is a horrid idea, according to My Damn Speaker. As California Conservative puts it:

In making these comments, Ms. Pelosi is essentially saying that she’s placing a higher priority on not splitting up communities than on enforcing the law. She’s also essentially saying that ‘not splitting up communities’ is a higher priority than closing down the border so we can stop terrorists before they get here.

Ms. Pelosi’s pandering shows that Democrats put politics ahead of national security. Simply put, Ms. Pelosi’s panderfest is meant to collect votes. Based on these quotes, it’s obvious that she either doesn’t care about setting intelligent national security policy or she’s willing to deceive Hispanics with her rhetoric while practicing another thing.

If the GOP had any brains (and I’m not confident that they do), they’d ride this horse as far as they could.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, Pelosi | 4 Comments

Hey, MSM…I’ve got your “grim milestone” right here!

From Ace:

The US has tried pretty hard to play down enemy casualties in Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. General Tommy Franks once famously said, ‘We don’t do body counts’. Well of course they do and USA Today got the 19,000 and change figure out of them. Add to that the 25,000 in US custody and you are starting to talk about a whole lot of terrorists who are now hors de combat.

As I’ve often said to the liberal trolls who point to US deaths as a reason for us to leave Iraq, casualties are not the be all and end all metric of success. But it seems that for the last 4 years the media, the Democrats and the left (but I repeat myself) have been wetting themselves in anticipation of each new ‘grim milestone’ of US deaths, yet they have been strangely silent on the toll this war has inflicted upon the enemy and what that might mean to the outcome in Iraq.

You almost get the impression from the media that US troops are doing nothing more than driving around Iraq waiting to be killed without ever fighting back (unless the dead are women and children attending a wedding). Turns out they have been shooting back and their aim is pretty good.

Of course the keys to victory in Iraq are Gen. Petraeus’ counter insurgency strategy as well as political reconciliation but killing the bad guys shouldn’t be overlooked either. 

I’m not trivializing the tragic loss of life that our soldiers (and our countrymen) have endured.  I am, though, pointing out the fact that the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) has, for the most part, glossed over the numbers of dead terrorists in their mouthbreathing obsession to make Bush look bad.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias, religion of peace | 2 Comments

David Shuster’s quasi-apology, plus his tips from MoveOn

Following up on yesterday’s Shuster story, he got caught with his pants down taking one in the ‘chute for the left team. He begrudgingly semi-apologizes:

Finally, Shuster’s on-air apology, which had all the spontaneity of a hostage video, differed from what he had said in a presumably more candid email earlier today. As noted at National Review’s Media Log, Shuster had replied to criticism from a reader by emailing this:

the story was about blackburn’s hypocrisy… it wouldn’t matter whether the soldier’s name was David shuster or Crazy Water [the email name of the reader]. she didn’t know the name, period.

Regards,
D

Translation: Who cares about the soldier? I just want to make my point.

How it’s hypocritical for her not to know the name of a dead soldier who WASN’T from her district is beyond me. If anything, hypocrisy is Shuster pretending to care about the death of a soldier, when in reality, the soldier is merely serving as a prop in his ill-fated “gotcha” attempt on TV!

Anywho, here’s the latest analysis, from the American Spectator:

MSNBC’s David Shuster is a bright reporter, who owes his career largely to being colleague Chris Matthews’s waterboy lo these many years. In the past he’s built a reputation for enterprise reporting, but earlier this week he attempted to embarrass Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn during an on-air interview:

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn: “The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh — from my district I — I do not know his name …

Shuster: “Okay, his name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I — I, you know, I — I do not know why I did not know the name…”

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man. He was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and Move On.org….

“Don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad. When was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18-year-old kid, Jeremy Bohannon, from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

One problem: the soldier in question wasn’t from Blackburn’s district. Another problem: MSNBC producers got the name from MoveOn.org, which has been compiling the names of deceased military personnel and feeding them to reporters for “gotcha” interviews.

There is no evidence that Shuster accepted the name at a discounted MSNBC ad rate, however. (Ouch! Good one! – Ed.)

It’s a good thing that journalists have these multiple layers of fact-checking at their disposal, otherwise they’d come across as poorly informed left-wing hacks. Oops…too late.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | media bias, moonbats | 2 Comments

“When You Can’t Find A Witness, Just Quote Yourself”

More and more often, we’re seeing declining standards of journalism.  From Say Anything:

Good grief…

U.S. fire scatters crowd after Afghan bomb: witness
By Noor Mohammad Sherzai

BATI KOT, Afghanistan (Reuters) – At least one U.S.soldier opened fire to scatter a crowd of civilians and police on Thursday after failed suicide bomb attacks on a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military and witnesses said.

A car bomb targeting a U.S. convoy in the village of Bati Kot, 15 km (9 miles) east of Jalalabad, killed the driver, two passengers and a nearby civilian, but none of the soldiers was hurt, the U.S. military said in a statement.

Afghan police securing the site in eastern Afghanistan were then attacked by an insurgent dressed in police uniform. He was killed by the police and coalition troops before he could detonate his suicide vest, the statement said.

To add to the confusion, a fire brigade vehicle speeding to the scene rammed into the U.S. and Afghan vehicles.

“I saw the fire brigade vehicle rushing to the area at top speed. Somehow its brakes failed and hit one police vehicle and coalition vehicles, then the Americans started firing,” said Reuters correspondent Noor Mohammad Sherzai.

So the premise of the article is that a witness saw at least one US soldier scatter a crowd around an Afghan suicide bombing by opening fire, and that one witness just happens to also be the author of the story.

Professional.  You can’t tell me that in the entire crowd with Sherzai couldn’t fine one single person to get a quote from aside from himself.

By the way, you gotta love how they make it sound as though the troop started firing into the crowd of police and civilians to disperse them.  We don’t learn until the end of the article that the soldier fired shots away from the crowd in order to break them up in case there should be another bombing. 

Nope…no liberal media bias! Not that this should come as a surprise from al-Reuters, the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” network.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | Afghanistan, media bias | 2 Comments

“Dingell proposes taxes out the wazoo to fight global warming”

Democrats?  Oppressive taxes?  The hell you say!  From Hot Air:

Well, that’s what he says the taxes are for. He’s a Democrat, his lips are moving, you do the math.

Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won’t like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

“I’m trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it’s going to have a measure of pain that you’re not going to like,” Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dingell will offer a “discussion draft” outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.

The basic points of the plan are:

—A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

—A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

—Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

And the revenues generated will go to pay for:

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

In other words, they would just use the taxes to pay for stuff they’re already doing but want to do more of. How does highway construction or paying the poor’s energy bills do diddly for global warming? I could see someone making an argument that more highways lead to less traffic congestion, which leads to fewer traffic jams, which leads to less waste of fossil fuels, but the green counter-argument is usually that more highways leads to more drivers driving more cars.

At any rate, before we all run off ready to pay another half buck per gallon in gas taxes, perhaps we should bone up on the science that’s supposedly driving the global warming movement. Such as, the hockey stick may have been broken.  

Two posts in a row on economic ignorance.  I may have tied a record here.  Maybe I’ll find a third one by the end of the day.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, global warming | 4 Comments

Senate raising federal govt’s debt ceiling…again

President or Congress, Republican or Democrat, I will criticize this loudly and longly every single time. From al-Reuters:

With the U.S. government fast approaching its current $8.965 trillion credit limit, the Senate on Thursday gave final congressional approval of an $850 billion increase in U.S. borrowing authority.

The Senate voted 53-42 to raise the debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion, the fifth increase in the U.S. credit limit since President George W. Bush took office in January 2001. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the higher debt limit earlier this year as part of the overall budget resolution and the legislation now goes to Bush for his signature.

“We have no choice but to approve it. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling soon, the U.S. Treasury will default for the first time in its history,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.
…
But Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, urged lawmakers to reject the debt increase and concentrate on spending cuts instead.

“Families across America don’t have the luxury of loaning themselves any money when they’ve maxed out their credit. But that’s what we’re going to do,” Coburn said.

That’s just crazy talk, Sen. Coburn. Your colleagues on both sides of the aisle are addicted to pissing our money away, so by raising the debt ceiling, they’re just upping the amount they can piss away this year.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance | 2 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers