Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Pelosi: Republicans “like this war” and “want it to continue”

Like a person who loads up on the buffet on Sunday night before starting a diet the next morning, San Fran Nan is trying to squeeze in as much bitch as possible before her New Years resolution to ease up on the bitch throttle kicks in.  From Breitbart/AP:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public’s priorities.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans’ ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

“We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. “But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”

Asked to clarify her remarks, Pelosi backed off a bit.

“I shouldn’t say they like the war,” she said. “They support the war, the course of action that the president is on.”

She must have had one of those FISA-less wiretaps, because I was just telling Karl Rove the other day on the phone that I love football, scantily clad women, beer…oh, and the war in Iraq.  For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm (though the “football, scantily clad women, beer” bit was true).

And this mental midget moonbat is this country’s Speaker?  God help us.

December 13, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Iraq, Pelosi | 7 Comments

Huck’s “Wille Horton” revisited

As a follow-up on my prior post about Mike Huckabee’s lobbying to release rapist-murderer Wayne Dumond, we get a little more insight into Huck’s mentality:

Pastor Jay] Cole, meanwhile, was working to help DuMond. Cole said he talked to “probably a hundred people” about his hope of winning DuMond’s release, turning foremost to the evangelical community. He said many evangelicals were encouraged that DuMond had claimed a religious conversion, and that many joined Cole in writing to Huckabee about DuMond’s situation.

The clincher, he said, was their belief that DuMond had been “saved.” 

To be fair, it wasn’t only Huckabee that wanted the guy paroled, but many others in the evangelical community.  However, this doesn’t excuse Huck, since he took quite the proactive role in securing Dumond’s release.

Here’s a question that chaps my posterior: where in the Sam Hill does the Bible say that we are to not only forgive murderers and rapists, but to free them from incarceration?  I mean, sure, the Bible is crystal clear on the matter of forgiveness, but for the love of God, there is a gi-normous difference between forgiveness of sin and a legal absolution of one’s crimes against society!

I seem to recall a number of years ago where a woman in Texas (sorry, don’t recall her name) was on death row for brutally killing someone.  While in prison, she was saved by Jesus.  She demanded that her attorney drop all appeals, though her attorney and the evangelical community wanted her spared from death (the latter because they thought her newly found salvation should have been reason enough to spare her life).

She told everyone that while she was thankful for their concern and efforts, she (a) wanted to bring some closure to the victim’s families, (b) she needed to be punished for her crime, though her soul would be spared due to her salvation, and (b) she was ready to leave Earth to be with God.  In my view, she was sincere in her beliefs, and she was probably truly saved.  However, even she acknowledged that while her salvation may have changed her afterlife’s fate, it did not and should not change her Earthly life’s fate.

There is no Christian directive to impose legal benefits in our Earthly lives when we achieve salvation.  Were that so, I’m sure there would be hundreds of thousands of inmates who would, as luck would have it, just so happen to be saved while in prison and demand their release accordingly.  Forgive on a personal level, yes, but imposing that forgiveness on society (and with tragic consequences) via the powerful hand of the state?  Absolutely not.

Huck has used his power in government to satisfy his Christian impulses on countless occasions, even granting clemency to more convicts (including violent criminals) than six neighboring states combined!  Hell, prosecutors had to beg him to stop granting clemencies!  While he and I may believe in the same God and the same Bible, one would think that he would take his governmental responsibilities a little more seriously than he apparently does.

As far as I’m concerned, Mike Huckabee has shown a horrid dereliction of his duty, and for that (among other reasons I’ve outlined here before), he will never have my vote.

December 13, 2007 Posted by | Huckabee | 4 Comments

MSM talking head: “inane” to suggest armed citizen saved lives

Scenario: Nutbar walks into church and starts shooting people. Armed citizen shoots said nutbar, wounding him to the point where can no longer inflict carnage on the innocent who are present. Realizing this, and fearing incarceration for the remainder of his days, the nutjob kills himself. Inescapable conclusion: the armed citizen prevented the murder of scores of innocent people by incapacitating the psychopath.

But as Newsbusters reports, this MSM meat stick has her anti-gun views and is fully prepared to ignore reality in order to keep her mental apple cart upright:

Don’t confuse Mika Brzezinski with the facts. She’s anti-gun and is not about to let some stunning counter-evidence change her mind.

If ever there was an illustration of how an armed citizen can make a difference, it is the case of Jeanne Assam, the brave woman who took out the killer at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. And yet . . .

On today’s Morning Joe, Mika — in newsreader mode — dutifully reported the incident. But when Joe Scarborough sought to draw the logical inference, Mika put her anti-gun foot down.

View video here.

Let’s see: the people who were actually there during the church shooting say that Jeanne Assam saved 50 – 100 lives by shooting the killer; but what do they know?  It’s not like they were actually present during the shooting, right?

What?  Oh, yeah…they were there, and Mika was not!  Hmmm…I think I’ll take the word of the survivors over some reflexive anti-gun emotional wench who is impervious to glaringly obvious facts, if it’s all the same to you guys.

December 13, 2007 Posted by | gun rights, media bias | 3 Comments

Nine House Dems find Ramadan more acceptable than Christmas

House resolutions are, in my view, a waste of time.  They’re nothing more than non-binding statements of opinion, and votes on resolutions can better be spent attending to the business of America.

Having said that, this is repulsive:

From the office of GOP Rep. Steve King:

Congressman Steve King reacted this morning to the nine “NO” votes on his resolution to honor Christmas and the Christian faith. The vote shocked Capitol Hill observers because votes on similar resolutions honoring the holidays of Islam and Hinduism passed without any NO votes.

Appearing this morning on the Fox News Channel’s Fox and Friends, King said, “The [nine] naysayers didn’t make it to the floor to debate. I would like to know how they could vote Yes on Islam, Yes on the Indian Religions and No on Christianity when the foundation of this nation and our American culture is Christianity…I think there’s an assault on Christianity in America.”

The nine Members voting NO were Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) (FL), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). None of the nine voted against resolutions honoring the Islamic holiday of Ramadan and the Hindu holiday of Diwali.
…
More:

Nine Democrats voted No – Ackerman, Clarke, DeGette, Hastings (FL), Lee, McDermott, Scott (VA), Stark and Woolsey.

Nine Democrats voted Present – Conyers, Frank (MA), Holt, Payne, Schakowsky, Schwartz, Wasserman Schultz, Welch (VT) and Yarmuth

This is interesting because of this group 17 of the 18 Ds above voted FOR a resolution honoring Ramadan (Lee missed the vote). Note that the King resolution was based on the language in the Ramadan resolution. You can compare them if you want, but King’s is more benign. Ramadan – H.Res. 635 and Christmas – H. Res. 847

H. Res. 847: recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 1143

Well, well, well…all Democrats!  Whoever would have guessed such a thing?  Basically, these moonbat legislators are saying that “Ramadan is good, Diwali is good, but Christmas?  Not so much.”

Here’s guessing that they think honoring Christmas is somehow violating that “separation of church and state” thingy they swear exists in the Constitution, but honoring other religions does not violate that “separation of church and state” thingy they swear exists in the Constitution. It’s as if publicly honoring minority religions don’t violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but inexplicably, honoring Christmas does.

These people are politically correct jackasses, serving as a collective boil on the #ss of society.

December 13, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, political correctness, shameful | 5 Comments

Clinton camp: We’re attacking Obama’s drug use for his own good

This is quite the hoot:

Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire, raised the issue of Sen. Barack Obama’s past admissions of drug use in discussing the relative electability of the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination today.

In an interview, Shaheen said, he remains perplexed about why, at this fraught point in history, voters and the media are not giving more attention to experienced Democratic candidates such as Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden and are instead elevating into the first tier alongside Clinton a pair of candidates with less experience in Washington, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Shaheen also expressed his personal misgivings about whether Obama or Edwards would be electable if they became the party’s nominee.

Among his concerns about Obama as the nominee, he said in an interview here today, is that his background is so relatively unknown and that the Republicans would do their best to unearth negative aspects of it, or concoct mistruths about it. Shaheen, a lawyer and influential state power broker, mentioned as an example Obama’s use of cocaine and marijuana as a young man, which Obama has been open about in his memoir and on the trail.

“The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight … and one of the things they’re certainly going to jump on is his drug use,” said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama’s openness about his past drug use — which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire — with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was “young and irresponsible.”

Shaheen said Obama’s candor on the subject would “open the door” to further questions. “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” Shaheen said. “There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.” 

Ah, now I get it.  The only reason that Her Highness’ handlers are dredging up Obama’s past drug use has nothing to do with her wanting to take down Obama in the primaries, but is instead for the purposes of preparing Barry O to deal with the “evil Republican attack machine.”  That’s mighty big of her, wouldn’t you say?

By the way, how funny is it that the couple who brought us “I didn’t inhale” are attacking anyone for past drug use?  Pots and kettles are coming to mind right now.

December 13, 2007 Posted by | drugs, Hillary, hypocrisy, Obama | 2 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers