VP Biden gave a speech today: Here.
It was good.
Peachy Keenan, Domestic Extremist
1 day ago
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Obama – “Let Them Eat Poop"
Bush got hammered for not responding to Hurricane Katrina fast enough and now Obama has done the same thing and you don't hear much about it from our news outlets. So Politipage has provided us with a time line of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and what Obama was doing when it happened.
Hat Tip to iOwnTheWorld.
Hat Tip to iOwnTheWorld.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Anti-Palin Author Living Next Door Threatens To Call Police On Reporter
The press can't leave Sarah Palin alone.
A "journalist" has just rented the home next door the the Palins in Alaska for the purpose of gathering information to write a book on Sarah. Why? She isn't Governor anymore and she is not running for any sort of race. Why the attraction?
Anyway? here is the report.
A "journalist" has just rented the home next door the the Palins in Alaska for the purpose of gathering information to write a book on Sarah. Why? She isn't Governor anymore and she is not running for any sort of race. Why the attraction?
Anyway? here is the report.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
NJ Governor Chris Christie
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yuri7p_9pm4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yuri7p_9pm4&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
This happened weeks ago.
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kV525Y1mKt0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kV525Y1mKt0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>
This guy is the first Republican to win any state wide election in NJ for a decade. Democrats were screwing things up in NJ and the citizens were sick of it and presto...they have Christie.
This happened weeks ago.
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kV525Y1mKt0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kV525Y1mKt0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>
This guy is the first Republican to win any state wide election in NJ for a decade. Democrats were screwing things up in NJ and the citizens were sick of it and presto...they have Christie.
Modern Civil Rights: Cockfighting And Same Sex Proms
Watching TV this week, at first I thought Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul had flown a commercial jet into the World Trade Center. But then it turned out that he had only said there ought to be discussion about whether federal civil rights laws should be applied to private businesses.
This allowed the mainstream media to accuse Paul of being a racist. Twisting a conservative's words in order to accuse him of racism was evidently more urgent news than the fact that the attorney general of the United States admitted last week -- under oath in a congressional hearing -- that he had not read the 10-page Arizona law on illegal immigration, the very law he was noisily threatening to overturn.
And really, how could the U.S. attorney general have time to read a 10-page law when he's busy doing all the Sunday morning TV shows condemning it?
Eric Holder's astonishing admission was completely ignored by ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, Time or Newsweek, according to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.
I just want to say: I think it's fantastic that the Democrats have finally come out against race discrimination. Any day now, maybe they'll come out for fighting the Cold War. Perhaps 100 years from now, they'll be ready to fight the war on terrorism or champion the rights of the unborn.
It would be a big help, though, if Democrats could support good causes when it mattered.
But as long as the media are so fascinated with the question of why anyone would want to "discuss" certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, maybe they should ask Al Gore why his father was one of the leading opponents of the bill.
Or they could ask Bill Clinton, whose mentor, Sen. William Fulbright, actively supported segregation and also voted against the bill. Or they could talk to the only current member of the Senate to vote against it, Democrat Bob Byrd.
As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities. A distinctly smaller majority of Democrats voted for it.
In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the act, compared with only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the law, compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.
With even all Democrats coming aboard on opposition to race discrimination (and it only took them 45 years!) I think we can stipulate that everyone in America is opposed to discrimination against blacks.
Now let's talk about the "civil rights" lawsuits that are actually brought in modern America. Today's "civil rights" lawsuits have nothing to do with black Americans. Worse, blacks are used as props to benefit the Democrats' favored constituencies: feminists and trial lawyers.
Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum pioneered the technique, running ads against Republican Ellen Sauerbrey in the 1998 Maryland gubernatorial race, accusing her of having "a civil rights record to be ashamed of." To really drive the point home, Shrum's ads showed sad-looking black people in front of a mural of Africa.
Of course, if I were forced to appear in political ads for Bob Shrum, I'd be sad, too.
But the only "civil rights" bill that Sauerbrey opposed had nothing to do with blacks. It was a sexual harassment bill that was so silly that Democrats in the Maryland legislature helped kill it.
Similarly, the vast bulk of "civil rights" lawsuits today have nothing to do with race. Although plaintiffs will jam every possible allegation of discrimination in their complaints, in 2009, according to the website of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, 65 percent of all civil rights claims brought had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.
These days, a typical federal "civil rights" case is the one brought this year by the Game Fowl Breeders Association in New Mexico claiming their "civil rights" have been violated by a state law banning cockfighting. Another modern "civil rights" lawsuit charged that a McDonald's restaurant violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by hanging a bathroom mirror two inches too high for people in wheelchairs. The error was made when employees replaced the original mirror, which had been destroyed by vandals, with a shorter one.
The restaurant owner, Ron Piazza, corrected the problem as soon as it was brought to his attention, but he got sued anyway. Curiously, the plaintiffs had retained their McDonalds' receipts, allowing them to claim damages for 27 separate visits to the restaurant.
And of course there are all the lesbians shutting down high school proms across the country because they can't take their girlfriends to the dance as the Founding Fathers intended.
This year's graduating class at Itawamba Agricultural High School in rural Mississippi will never have a school senior prom because the ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of Constance McMillen demanding that she be allowed to bring her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.
With cockfighting bans and heterosexual proms, Martin Luther King's work remains unfinished!
Half a century ago, Democrats beat up the Freedom Riders. Today the Democrats insult the Freedom Riders by comparing them to irritating lesbians, lawsuit-happy disabled persons and cockfighters.
The question is not whether the federal government should be telling private businesses they can't engage in race discrimination. The question is whether federal civil rights laws should prevent any discrimination other than race discrimination.
-Ann Coulter
This allowed the mainstream media to accuse Paul of being a racist. Twisting a conservative's words in order to accuse him of racism was evidently more urgent news than the fact that the attorney general of the United States admitted last week -- under oath in a congressional hearing -- that he had not read the 10-page Arizona law on illegal immigration, the very law he was noisily threatening to overturn.
And really, how could the U.S. attorney general have time to read a 10-page law when he's busy doing all the Sunday morning TV shows condemning it?
Eric Holder's astonishing admission was completely ignored by ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, Time or Newsweek, according to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.
I just want to say: I think it's fantastic that the Democrats have finally come out against race discrimination. Any day now, maybe they'll come out for fighting the Cold War. Perhaps 100 years from now, they'll be ready to fight the war on terrorism or champion the rights of the unborn.
It would be a big help, though, if Democrats could support good causes when it mattered.
But as long as the media are so fascinated with the question of why anyone would want to "discuss" certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, maybe they should ask Al Gore why his father was one of the leading opponents of the bill.
Or they could ask Bill Clinton, whose mentor, Sen. William Fulbright, actively supported segregation and also voted against the bill. Or they could talk to the only current member of the Senate to vote against it, Democrat Bob Byrd.
As with the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts, it was Republicans who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act by huge majorities. A distinctly smaller majority of Democrats voted for it.
In the Senate, for example, 82 percent of Republicans voted for the act, compared with only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans supported the law, compared with only 63 percent of Democrats.
With even all Democrats coming aboard on opposition to race discrimination (and it only took them 45 years!) I think we can stipulate that everyone in America is opposed to discrimination against blacks.
Now let's talk about the "civil rights" lawsuits that are actually brought in modern America. Today's "civil rights" lawsuits have nothing to do with black Americans. Worse, blacks are used as props to benefit the Democrats' favored constituencies: feminists and trial lawyers.
Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum pioneered the technique, running ads against Republican Ellen Sauerbrey in the 1998 Maryland gubernatorial race, accusing her of having "a civil rights record to be ashamed of." To really drive the point home, Shrum's ads showed sad-looking black people in front of a mural of Africa.
Of course, if I were forced to appear in political ads for Bob Shrum, I'd be sad, too.
But the only "civil rights" bill that Sauerbrey opposed had nothing to do with blacks. It was a sexual harassment bill that was so silly that Democrats in the Maryland legislature helped kill it.
Similarly, the vast bulk of "civil rights" lawsuits today have nothing to do with race. Although plaintiffs will jam every possible allegation of discrimination in their complaints, in 2009, according to the website of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, 65 percent of all civil rights claims brought had absolutely nothing to do with race discrimination.
These days, a typical federal "civil rights" case is the one brought this year by the Game Fowl Breeders Association in New Mexico claiming their "civil rights" have been violated by a state law banning cockfighting. Another modern "civil rights" lawsuit charged that a McDonald's restaurant violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by hanging a bathroom mirror two inches too high for people in wheelchairs. The error was made when employees replaced the original mirror, which had been destroyed by vandals, with a shorter one.
The restaurant owner, Ron Piazza, corrected the problem as soon as it was brought to his attention, but he got sued anyway. Curiously, the plaintiffs had retained their McDonalds' receipts, allowing them to claim damages for 27 separate visits to the restaurant.
And of course there are all the lesbians shutting down high school proms across the country because they can't take their girlfriends to the dance as the Founding Fathers intended.
This year's graduating class at Itawamba Agricultural High School in rural Mississippi will never have a school senior prom because the ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of Constance McMillen demanding that she be allowed to bring her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo.
With cockfighting bans and heterosexual proms, Martin Luther King's work remains unfinished!
Half a century ago, Democrats beat up the Freedom Riders. Today the Democrats insult the Freedom Riders by comparing them to irritating lesbians, lawsuit-happy disabled persons and cockfighters.
The question is not whether the federal government should be telling private businesses they can't engage in race discrimination. The question is whether federal civil rights laws should prevent any discrimination other than race discrimination.
-Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Top Obama Official Refers To Jerusalem By It's Arab Name
John Brenna talks about his favorite city “al-Quds” and praises the Middle East for the freedom to practice your faith(?)
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wglrLBqYxQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wglrLBqYxQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Hat Tip: The Right Scoop
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wglrLBqYxQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wglrLBqYxQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Hat Tip: The Right Scoop
Friday, May 21, 2010
Height Of Hypocrisy
Calderon bashed Arizona today in front of Congress for asking illegal immigrants for ID’s.
Democrats gave him a standing ovation. But, last night on CNN, Mexican President Felipe Calderon admitted that Mexican authorities ask for papers from people they expect to be illegal immigrants.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnDOJKH7fS4&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnDOJKH7fS4&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Democrats gave him a standing ovation. But, last night on CNN, Mexican President Felipe Calderon admitted that Mexican authorities ask for papers from people they expect to be illegal immigrants.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnDOJKH7fS4&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EnDOJKH7fS4&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
A Right Leaning Movie?
I haven't seen Robin Hood yet. I don't think I have seen a Robin Hood movie since 1973s Robin Hood, but after reading a few reviews and hearing a few reviews from people I respect, I think I'll watch it.
The story of Robin Hood is usually take from the rich to give to the poor, which is a message I can't get behind. This version of the movie seems to have turned things around a bit. According to one review I read, Robin is for individual rights and can be heard shouting things like "liberty!"
If the reviews have cast the movie in it's proper light, Ridley Scott seems to have come to his senses. Movies like 1492: Conquest of Paradise and Kingdom of Heaven seem to put those who are good and right people and organizations in a negative light. But recently, movies like Robin Hood and the pre-production Brave New World, seem to show that he has moved right down the political spectrum or at the most switched camps.
I don't pretend to know the mind of Mr. Scott and he's done so many movies that have had nothing to do with religion, history, or politics to make a guess on which camp he's in. I'm just happy that a movie is made that doesn't have a left-leaning ideology attached to it.
The story of Robin Hood is usually take from the rich to give to the poor, which is a message I can't get behind. This version of the movie seems to have turned things around a bit. According to one review I read, Robin is for individual rights and can be heard shouting things like "liberty!"
If the reviews have cast the movie in it's proper light, Ridley Scott seems to have come to his senses. Movies like 1492: Conquest of Paradise and Kingdom of Heaven seem to put those who are good and right people and organizations in a negative light. But recently, movies like Robin Hood and the pre-production Brave New World, seem to show that he has moved right down the political spectrum or at the most switched camps.
I don't pretend to know the mind of Mr. Scott and he's done so many movies that have had nothing to do with religion, history, or politics to make a guess on which camp he's in. I'm just happy that a movie is made that doesn't have a left-leaning ideology attached to it.
The Amazon Top 25
At Amazon.com you can find a list of the top 25 purchased books. Currently, 17 of the 25 have been mentioned on the Glenn Beck Program or he has had the author on the show.
I only mention this because there are those who are conservative but discredit Glenn by saying that he is fantastical and conspiracy prone for the ratings. This is clearly untrue and they should start listening to the show. There is a rapid turn towards the Founders and the founding of this country and this is where it is beginning.
I only mention this because there are those who are conservative but discredit Glenn by saying that he is fantastical and conspiracy prone for the ratings. This is clearly untrue and they should start listening to the show. There is a rapid turn towards the Founders and the founding of this country and this is where it is beginning.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Republicans On Track To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory
Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!
That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.
Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.
The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!
The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.
Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!
Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate ObamaCare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?
Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.
Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.
For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.
Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.
Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.
Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."
For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.
How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.
No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.
Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey -- what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?
As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"
As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.
Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.
After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)
But now we find out from a front-page article in The New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" -- he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.
He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)
Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!
Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.
Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor -- who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.
But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!
-Ann Coulter
That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.
Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.
The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!
The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.
Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!
Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate ObamaCare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?
Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.
Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.
For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.
Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.
Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.
Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."
For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.
How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.
No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.
Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey -- what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?
As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"
As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.
Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.
After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)
But now we find out from a front-page article in The New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" -- he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.
He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)
Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!
Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.
Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor -- who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.
But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!
-Ann Coulter
Students Asked for "Citizen Status" Before Obama Commencment.
Obama is set to give a commencment speech at Kalamazoo High School in the upcoming weeks. After the commencement he will shake the hands of all the seniors. The White House is taking all necessary precautions by making all seniors to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers and citizen status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed. Such a check is required for anyone who gets within an arm’s length of the president, students were told at their senior breakfast Friday.
In light of what is going on in Arizona right now, this is kind of a bone head move on the part of the White House and Obama. Everyone sees the hypocrisy here. It was reported on the Drudge Report for crying out loud. Geez.
In light of what is going on in Arizona right now, this is kind of a bone head move on the part of the White House and Obama. Everyone sees the hypocrisy here. It was reported on the Drudge Report for crying out loud. Geez.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sick
Captured the world's imagination?! Imagination?! Are we talking about Disneyland here or a beheading?
Unbelievable.
Dems and Reps and Scandals
It has been reported that Republican Rep. Souder had an affair with a female staffer and has announced his resignation today because of it.
Also being covered is the story that the A.G. for Connecticut, who is running for Chris Dodd's Senate seat, lied about serving in the Vietnam War. Seams weird that a lawyer, who is trained to not have loose words claims that he slipped up when he spoke. Anyway, he will not be stepping down.
All we hear is excuse after excuse from the Democrats when there is scandal or lies. Atleast when a Republican screws up he realized he's unfit for office and leaves.
Larry Craig, Jack Ryan, Mark Foley, George Allen and Tom Delay were all Republicans and all left office...for sex scandals...in which no one had sex (except Souder)
Now for the Democrats: Ted Kennedy killed a girl, Clinton had Lewinsky, Sandy Berger stole classified 9/11 documents and Barney Frank ran a prostitution ring out of his apartment.
Also being covered is the story that the A.G. for Connecticut, who is running for Chris Dodd's Senate seat, lied about serving in the Vietnam War. Seams weird that a lawyer, who is trained to not have loose words claims that he slipped up when he spoke. Anyway, he will not be stepping down.
All we hear is excuse after excuse from the Democrats when there is scandal or lies. Atleast when a Republican screws up he realized he's unfit for office and leaves.
Larry Craig, Jack Ryan, Mark Foley, George Allen and Tom Delay were all Republicans and all left office...for sex scandals...in which no one had sex (except Souder)
Now for the Democrats: Ted Kennedy killed a girl, Clinton had Lewinsky, Sandy Berger stole classified 9/11 documents and Barney Frank ran a prostitution ring out of his apartment.
Obama Apoligizes for AZ Law...to China!
This is unfreakingbelievable, even for the Obama administration:
The United States and China reported no major breakthroughs Friday after only their second round of talks about human rights since 2002.What an idiot! China murdered millions of its citizens who opposed the government's Communist policies and allows most of its people little or no freedom. We, on the other hand, enforce our immigration laws. No, wait--actually we don't. That's why Arizona had to take a shot at it. Oh, by the way, Michael Posner, you clueless moron--China actually does enforce its immigration laws
The Obama administration wants to push Beijing to treat its citizens better, but it also needs Chinese support on Iranian and North Korean nuclear standoffs, climate change and other difficult issues. ...
[Assistant Secretary of State Michael] Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its [sic] own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.
Democrat Running For Senate Seat Lies About Vietnam Service
This clown did not serve in Vietnam, in fact he did all he could do to get out of service. If only he had mentioned getting a medal for his "service," he could be tried for violating the Stolen Valor Act. He can be booted from the race though.
Pathetic.
Monday, May 17, 2010
OUTRAGE: Mosque built at Ground Zero will be dedicated on September 11th 2011!
The Ground Zero mosque is set to be dedicated on .....wait for it.....Sept 11, 2011!
"If the Japanese decided to open a cultural center across from Pearl Harbor, that would be insensitive," Sipos told me. "If the Germans opened a Bach choral society across from Auschwitz, even after all these years, that would be an insensitive setting.
"If the Japanese decided to open a cultural center across from Pearl Harbor, that would be insensitive," Sipos told me. "If the Germans opened a Bach choral society across from Auschwitz, even after all these years, that would be an insensitive setting.
"It's a stab in the eye of America."
Glenn Beck Speech
When was the last time you heard Moses, the Spirit, the Atonement, or Jesus at a commencement speech? Or any speech?
Here.
Here.
UPDATE: Miss America
Miss Michigan does not deserve the title of Miss America.
She not only tripped on her gown, she called birth control a “controlled substance.” She argued that contraceptives should be covered by health insurers because they are “expensive” — and then said you could get them for “free” from your OB/GYN’s office.
She not only tripped on her gown, she called birth control a “controlled substance.” She argued that contraceptives should be covered by health insurers because they are “expensive” — and then said you could get them for “free” from your OB/GYN’s office.
Imodest Women=Bad. Imodest Woman Who Wins Beauty Pageant=Good.
"And The Winner Is...Miss Michigan! Allahu Akbar!"
If you read this blog you know that I have reported that Miss Michigan may have ties to the terrorist organization Hizbollah. Well the other night Miss Michigan won the Miss America crown.
You can read about it here.
We all know that as part of the pageant, the contestants pose in an evening gown and swimsuit. And this year contestants wore lingerie for a sexy photo shoot. Rima Fakih can do what she wants, she's a big girl, we don't know if she is a devout Muslim or not. So her posing provocatively doesn't bug too much. It's not her I have a beef with. I have a beef with Islam.
Where is the uproar from the Muslim community? Women go our only if covered by the burka or at the very least the hijab. It is strictly forbidden to leave while uncovered. America takes Islamic criticize all the time from Muslims for it's moral-less culture, and now one of their own has taken part in that culture.
It seems as if Islam picks it's values to match the changing circumstances.
And another thing.
Miss Michigan was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it's costly.
If you read this blog you know that I have reported that Miss Michigan may have ties to the terrorist organization Hizbollah. Well the other night Miss Michigan won the Miss America crown.
You can read about it here.
We all know that as part of the pageant, the contestants pose in an evening gown and swimsuit. And this year contestants wore lingerie for a sexy photo shoot. Rima Fakih can do what she wants, she's a big girl, we don't know if she is a devout Muslim or not. So her posing provocatively doesn't bug too much. It's not her I have a beef with. I have a beef with Islam.
Where is the uproar from the Muslim community? Women go our only if covered by the burka or at the very least the hijab. It is strictly forbidden to leave while uncovered. America takes Islamic criticize all the time from Muslims for it's moral-less culture, and now one of their own has taken part in that culture.
It seems as if Islam picks it's values to match the changing circumstances.
And another thing.
Miss Michigan was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it's costly.
"I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it's a controlled substance," Fakih said.
Miss Oklahoma USA Morgan Elizabeth Woolard was named first runner-up after handling a question about Arizona's new immigration law.
Woolard said she supports the law, which requires police enforcing another law to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally.
Miss Michigan also stumbled at one point on her evening gown. Can anyone think of a past contestant who almost biffed it and still won? I can't. Clearly her liberal view got her the crown and Miss Oklahoma's conservative answer got her runner up.
Funny that Miss Oklahoma is being asked the immigration question by an American with Mexican heritage.
Funny that Miss Oklahoma is being asked the immigration question by an American with Mexican heritage.
Friday, May 14, 2010
High School Superintendent Won't Send Team to Arizona, But Will Send Kids To Secret GLSEN Gay Sex Class
From FOX News.
The school official who nixed an Illinois girls high school basketball team trip to Arizona once supported a controversial program that required students to attend a “freshman advisory” class where gay upperclassmen shared stories of their high school experience with new students.
The school official who nixed an Illinois girls high school basketball team trip to Arizona once supported a controversial program that required students to attend a “freshman advisory” class where gay upperclassmen shared stories of their high school experience with new students.
May 13, 2010: Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent of Highland Park, Ill., sits in her office.
The school official who nixed a girls' high school basketball team's planned trip to Arizona once supported a controversial program that required ninth-graders to attend a “freshman advisory” class at which gay upperclassmen shared stories of their high school experiences.
Parents who were unhappy with the class were even more outraged to learn that students who attended were asked to sign a statement promising not to tell others -- including their parents -- about what was said in class.
Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent of Highland Park, Ill., School District 113, killed the hoop dreams of the Highland Park High School girls' basketball team this week when she canceled their plans to participate in a tournament in Arizona in December. The decision has some parents and residents of the district crying foul over what they say was a politically motivated protest over the Grand Canyon State's recently passed immigration law.
But Hebson is no stranger to controversy. She’s been criticized for making decisions based on politics numerous times in the past.
In 2007, when she was assistant superintendent for human resources in the district, Hebson made national news for supporting an initiative at Deerfield High School that required freshman students to participate in orientation panel discussions, one of which was led by members of the school’s Straight and Gay Alliance Network. During the seminars, upperclassmen spoke to the ninth graders about a variety of topics affecting homosexual teens, including their own personal experiences -- and all students were required to sign confidentiality agreements swearing never to disclose what they heard. Parents were not allowed to attend the panel discussions, leading some to call it an attempt to indoctrinate students into a homosexual lifestyle.
"This is unbelievable,” Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, said at the time. “It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behaviors, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."
Their outrage grew as Hebson defended the program as a way to ease freshmen students’ transition into their new school. “We have a great deal of pride in the program and don't feel we are overstepping any boundaries that [most] parents would feel are inappropriate,” Hebson told the Chicago Tribune, adding that the orientation included talks on subjects other than homosexuality.
But Lora Sue Hauser, a parent whose child attended the school, claimed Deerfield High had a history of treating homosexuality as morally acceptable without acknowledging that others disagree.
She said dozens of parents wanted to bring an end to the controversial panel. "The school makes heterosexuality and homosexuality equivalent, and our country is deeply divided on that," Hauser told the Tribune. "You can't dump that on a 14-year-old. These are really difficult waters to navigate."
The parents formed a coalition and took out a full-page ad in their local newspaper blasting the mandatory program and its administrative backers and demanded that school officials rein in faculty who they said were promoting homosexuality.
The following year, Hebson was made principal of Deerfield High School, where she became embroiled in another controversy — this time related to the inclusion of the play “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes” in students’ required reading material.
Parents were alarmed by the book’s explicit content, which includes highly offensive racial slurs, vivid depictions of gay sex and a sexually explicit scene involving Mother Teresa.
Hauser’s group took their complaints to the state attorney general’s office, and school officials backed down, replacing “Angels in America” with another play.
"How can something like this happen?" you ask...well Obama named Kevin Jennings to be his Safe Schools Czar. Jennings formed GLSEN, the GLSEN organization promotes porn books for kids that romanticize child rape and gay orgies for first graders. GLSEN advisors hold talks on anonymous sex in parks. GLSEN trainers discuss the joys of peeing on your sex partner and tips on teen fisting.
Parents who were unhappy with the class were even more outraged to learn that students who attended were asked to sign a statement promising not to tell others -- including their parents -- about what was said in class.
Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent of Highland Park, Ill., School District 113, killed the hoop dreams of the Highland Park High School girls' basketball team this week when she canceled their plans to participate in a tournament in Arizona in December. The decision has some parents and residents of the district crying foul over what they say was a politically motivated protest over the Grand Canyon State's recently passed immigration law.
But Hebson is no stranger to controversy. She’s been criticized for making decisions based on politics numerous times in the past.
In 2007, when she was assistant superintendent for human resources in the district, Hebson made national news for supporting an initiative at Deerfield High School that required freshman students to participate in orientation panel discussions, one of which was led by members of the school’s Straight and Gay Alliance Network. During the seminars, upperclassmen spoke to the ninth graders about a variety of topics affecting homosexual teens, including their own personal experiences -- and all students were required to sign confidentiality agreements swearing never to disclose what they heard. Parents were not allowed to attend the panel discussions, leading some to call it an attempt to indoctrinate students into a homosexual lifestyle.
"This is unbelievable,” Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, said at the time. “It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behaviors, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."
Their outrage grew as Hebson defended the program as a way to ease freshmen students’ transition into their new school. “We have a great deal of pride in the program and don't feel we are overstepping any boundaries that [most] parents would feel are inappropriate,” Hebson told the Chicago Tribune, adding that the orientation included talks on subjects other than homosexuality.
But Lora Sue Hauser, a parent whose child attended the school, claimed Deerfield High had a history of treating homosexuality as morally acceptable without acknowledging that others disagree.
She said dozens of parents wanted to bring an end to the controversial panel. "The school makes heterosexuality and homosexuality equivalent, and our country is deeply divided on that," Hauser told the Tribune. "You can't dump that on a 14-year-old. These are really difficult waters to navigate."
The parents formed a coalition and took out a full-page ad in their local newspaper blasting the mandatory program and its administrative backers and demanded that school officials rein in faculty who they said were promoting homosexuality.
The following year, Hebson was made principal of Deerfield High School, where she became embroiled in another controversy — this time related to the inclusion of the play “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes” in students’ required reading material.
Parents were alarmed by the book’s explicit content, which includes highly offensive racial slurs, vivid depictions of gay sex and a sexually explicit scene involving Mother Teresa.
Hauser’s group took their complaints to the state attorney general’s office, and school officials backed down, replacing “Angels in America” with another play.
"How can something like this happen?" you ask...well Obama named Kevin Jennings to be his Safe Schools Czar. Jennings formed GLSEN, the GLSEN organization promotes porn books for kids that romanticize child rape and gay orgies for first graders. GLSEN advisors hold talks on anonymous sex in parks. GLSEN trainers discuss the joys of peeing on your sex partner and tips on teen fisting.
Miss America Contestant Has Terrorist Ties?
It looks as if one of the Miss America contestants (Miss Michigan) may be a terrorist supporter. From Debbie Schlussel :
Rima Fakih, Miss Michigan USA, who will compete in Sunday Night’s pageant broadcast on NBC,
...Her devout Muslim family comes from the Hezbollah-controlled South Lebanon. Intelligence sources confirm that at least three of Fakih’s relatives are currently top officials in Hezbollah and that at least eight Fakih family members were Hezbollah terrorists killed by the Israelis in past Israel-Lebanese wars and incursions. Some of her family members were originally in Harakat Amal [the Shi'ite Amal militia], which is now essentially a part of Hezbollah. There’s a reason that even Al-Manar TV–Hezbollah’s official TV network–is high on Fakih in the Miss USA pageant.
This is really all the info I could find on the topic...sorry there isn't more.
You are probably saying that last time you checked Muslim women were not to go around "uncovered," and especially not in a bikini. This is true. What you may not have heard of in Islam is Taqqiya. This is essentially lying and doing whatever is necessary to further Islam. Mohammad said that "war is deceit" and Muslims see themselves as being at war with us. How greatly would it change the national perception of Muslims if a Muslim won the Miss America pageant?
Rima Fakih, Miss Michigan USA, who will compete in Sunday Night’s pageant broadcast on NBC,
...Her devout Muslim family comes from the Hezbollah-controlled South Lebanon. Intelligence sources confirm that at least three of Fakih’s relatives are currently top officials in Hezbollah and that at least eight Fakih family members were Hezbollah terrorists killed by the Israelis in past Israel-Lebanese wars and incursions. Some of her family members were originally in Harakat Amal [the Shi'ite Amal militia], which is now essentially a part of Hezbollah. There’s a reason that even Al-Manar TV–Hezbollah’s official TV network–is high on Fakih in the Miss USA pageant.
This is really all the info I could find on the topic...sorry there isn't more.
You are probably saying that last time you checked Muslim women were not to go around "uncovered," and especially not in a bikini. This is true. What you may not have heard of in Islam is Taqqiya. This is essentially lying and doing whatever is necessary to further Islam. Mohammad said that "war is deceit" and Muslims see themselves as being at war with us. How greatly would it change the national perception of Muslims if a Muslim won the Miss America pageant?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Miss USA Double Standard
You can probably think back a little while and recall that Carrie Prejean, a Miss USA 2009 contestant, was given hell for some pictures that surfaced of her doing some modeling with out a shirt on. As many articles have stated, the pictures were a little risque but not over the top (not full frontal).
I am not hear to judge her on these pictures only, to point out that one of the pageants that gave her hell about them is now forcing the 2010 contestants to pose in lingerie as part of the pageant.
Here.
I am not hear to judge her on these pictures only, to point out that one of the pageants that gave her hell about them is now forcing the 2010 contestants to pose in lingerie as part of the pageant.
Here.
Supreme Court to Face Mecca
Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less "amateurish" and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.
Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)
That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.
Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.
When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.
Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen -- who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI -- got 30 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.
Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).
Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.
How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?
But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.
So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")
We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief's constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don't have the technology. (The New York Times hasn't gotten around to printing it.)
The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi's district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony "constitutional rights" liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.
President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they're Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.
(Recall that Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)
Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don't have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.
(Note: This is only a partial list.)
The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.
-Ann Coulter
Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)
That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.
Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.
When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.
Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen -- who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI -- got 30 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.
Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).
Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.
How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?
But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.
So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")
We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief's constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don't have the technology. (The New York Times hasn't gotten around to printing it.)
The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi's district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony "constitutional rights" liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.
President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they're Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.
(Recall that Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)
Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don't have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.
(Note: This is only a partial list.)
The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.
-Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
China Loves Obama
The Obama Club
Of course they love this guy. He's running our country into the ground. And at the rate he's doing it, China could be the sole superpower within 10 years.
Of course they love this guy. He's running our country into the ground. And at the rate he's doing it, China could be the sole superpower within 10 years.
A Few Videos
David Horowitz was speaking at the University of California at San Diego recently when he asked a question of a Muslim student.
Lt. Col. Allen West on why radical Islam is redundant:
During a lecture in Uppsala, [Lars] Vilks [the Swedish cartoonist who drew Mohammed as a dog] was attacked by a pack of feral fundamentalists, one of whom managed to headbutt the artist and break his glasses. The Mohammedans in the crowd can be heard yelling Allahu Akbar.
Lt. Col. Allen West on why radical Islam is redundant:
During a lecture in Uppsala, [Lars] Vilks [the Swedish cartoonist who drew Mohammed as a dog] was attacked by a pack of feral fundamentalists, one of whom managed to headbutt the artist and break his glasses. The Mohammedans in the crowd can be heard yelling Allahu Akbar.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Comedy Central To Make Show That Makes Fun Of Jesus
There is this ongoing debate as to which group is more prone to violence, the Islamic Jihadis or the Christian Fundamentalists. However, sensible people know there is no debate.
To back this up we have Comedy Central. They recently ran a cartoon that depicted Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, as a bear. Days later the creators of the cartoon had a fatwa placed on them. So Comedy Central said sorry and they have promised to not depict Mohammad again, as a bear or otherwise.
To back this up we have Comedy Central. They recently ran a cartoon that depicted Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, as a bear. Days later the creators of the cartoon had a fatwa placed on them. So Comedy Central said sorry and they have promised to not depict Mohammad again, as a bear or otherwise.
Weeks later Comedy Cental releases a list of shows that they are working on. One of them is called "JC." (Can you guess what it stands for?) It is a
If Christians had the same proclivity to violence as Jihadists, then why has Comedy Central decided to offend Christians and not Muslims?
Shame on Comedy Central.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Huge Mosque To Be Built Near Ground Zero
Read the article here.
or below...
A proposal to build a mosque steps from Ground Zero received the support of a downtown committee despite some loved ones of 9/11 victims finding it offensive.
The 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center was unanimously endorsed by the 12-member Community Board 1's financial district committee.
The $100 million project, called the Cordoba House, is proposed for the old Burlington Coat Factory building at Park Place and Broadway, just two blocks from the World Trade Center site.
"I think it will be a wonderful asset to the community," said committee Chairman Ro Sheffe.
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, who helped found the Cordoba Initiative following the 9/11 attacks, said the project is intended to foster better relations between the West and Muslims.
He said the glass-and-steel building would include a 500-seat performing arts venue, a swimming pool and a basketball court. "There's nothing like it," said Rauf, adding that facilities will be open to all New Yorkers.
Daisy Khan, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, said donations from prestigious groups such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund would pay for the construction.
Khan said the project has received little opposition.
"Whatever concerns anybody has, we have to make sure to educate them that we are an asset to the community," Khan said.
Khan said her group hopes construction on the project will begin by the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Once built, 1,000 to 2,000 Muslims are expected to pray at the mosque every Friday, she said.
No one at last night's meeting protested the project. But some 9/11 families said they found the proposal offensive because the terrorists who launched the attacks were Muslim.
"I realize it's not all of them, but I don't want to have to go down to a memorial where my son died on 9/11 and look at a mosque," said retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches - whose son Jim, a firefighter, was killed on 9/11.
"If you ask me, it's a religion of hate," said Riches, who did not attend last night's meeting.
Rosemary Cain of Massapequa, L.I., whose son, Firefighter George Cain, 35, was killed in the 2001 attacks, called the project a "slap in the face."
"I think it's despicable. That's sacred ground," said Cain, who also did not attend the meeting.
"How could anybody give them permission to build a mosque there? It tarnishes the area."
or below...
A proposal to build a mosque steps from Ground Zero received the support of a downtown committee despite some loved ones of 9/11 victims finding it offensive.
The 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center was unanimously endorsed by the 12-member Community Board 1's financial district committee.
The $100 million project, called the Cordoba House, is proposed for the old Burlington Coat Factory building at Park Place and Broadway, just two blocks from the World Trade Center site.
"I think it will be a wonderful asset to the community," said committee Chairman Ro Sheffe.
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, who helped found the Cordoba Initiative following the 9/11 attacks, said the project is intended to foster better relations between the West and Muslims.
He said the glass-and-steel building would include a 500-seat performing arts venue, a swimming pool and a basketball court. "There's nothing like it," said Rauf, adding that facilities will be open to all New Yorkers.
Daisy Khan, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, said donations from prestigious groups such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund would pay for the construction.
Khan said the project has received little opposition.
"Whatever concerns anybody has, we have to make sure to educate them that we are an asset to the community," Khan said.
Khan said her group hopes construction on the project will begin by the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Once built, 1,000 to 2,000 Muslims are expected to pray at the mosque every Friday, she said.
No one at last night's meeting protested the project. But some 9/11 families said they found the proposal offensive because the terrorists who launched the attacks were Muslim.
"I realize it's not all of them, but I don't want to have to go down to a memorial where my son died on 9/11 and look at a mosque," said retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches - whose son Jim, a firefighter, was killed on 9/11.
"If you ask me, it's a religion of hate," said Riches, who did not attend last night's meeting.
Rosemary Cain of Massapequa, L.I., whose son, Firefighter George Cain, 35, was killed in the 2001 attacks, called the project a "slap in the face."
"I think it's despicable. That's sacred ground," said Cain, who also did not attend the meeting.
"How could anybody give them permission to build a mosque there? It tarnishes the area."
Oh Man This Is Good
OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY: HOPE THEIR BOMBS DON'T WORK
May 5, 2010
It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not referring to Tea Party activists!)
This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.
After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pahk-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.
In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that -- contrary to the terrorists' wishes -- Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."
First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.
"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?
Second, it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.
But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!
If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.
The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.
In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."
He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.
He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them -- i.e. building them flush toilets.
He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.
There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.
Despite favorable reviews in The New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.
So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.
There's no other line of defense. In the case of the Times Square car bomber, the Department of Homeland Security failed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed, the CIA failed and the TSA failed. (However, the Department of Alert T-Shirt Vendors came through with flying colors, as it always does.)
Only the New York Police Department, a New York street vendor and Shahzad's Rube Goldberg bomb (I do hope he's not offended by how Jewish that sounds -- Obama can apologize) prevented a major explosion in Times Square.
Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.
To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.
Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.
Contrary to the wild excuses being made for the federal government on all the TV networks Monday night, it's now clear that this was not a wily plan of federal investigators to allow Shahzad to board the plane in order to nab his co-conspirators. It was a flub that nearly allowed Shahzad to escape.
Meanwhile, on that same Monday at JFK airport, approximately 100,000 passengers took off their shoes, coats, belts and sunglasses for airport security.
But the "highly trained federal force" The New York Times promised us on Oct. 28, 2001, when the paper demanded that airport security be federalized, failed to stop the only guy they needed to stop at JFK last Monday -- the one who planted a bomb in the middle of Times Square days earlier.
So why were 100,000 other passengers harassed and annoyed by the TSA?
The federal government didn't stop the diaper bomber from nearly detonating a bomb over Detroit. It didn't stop a guy on the "No Fly" list from boarding a plane and coming minutes away from getting out of the country.
If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?
Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of the Islamic faith. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information?
And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen in April 2009?
Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?
The NYPD can't be everyplace.
May 5, 2010
It took Faisal Shahzad trying to set a car bomb in Times Square to get President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to finally use the word "terrorism." (And not referring to Tea Party activists!)
This is a major policy shift for a president who spent a month telling Americans not to "jump to conclusions" after Army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly jumped on a desk, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and began shooting up Fort Hood.
After last weekend, now Obama is even threatening to pronounce it "Pack-i-stan" instead of "Pahk-i-stahn." We know Obama is taking terrorism seriously because he took a break from his "Hope, Change & Chuckles" tour on the comedy circuit to denounce terrorists.
In a bit of macho posturing this week, Obama declared that -- contrary to the terrorists' wishes -- Americans "will not be terrorized, we will not cower in fear, we will not be intimidated."
First of all, having the Transportation Security Administration wanding infants, taking applesauce away from 93-year-old dementia patients, and forcing all Americans to produce their shoes, computers and containers with up to 3 ounces of liquid in Ziploc bags for special screening pretty much blows that "not intimidated" look Obama wants America to adopt.
"Intimidated"? How about "absolutely terrified"?
Second, it would be a little easier for the rest of us not to live in fear if the president's entire national security strategy didn't depend on average citizens happening to notice a smoldering SUV in Times Square or smoke coming from a fellow airline passenger's crotch.
But after the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!
If only Dr. Hasan's gun had jammed at Fort Hood, that could have been another huge foreign policy success for Obama.
The administration's fingers-crossed strategy is a follow-up to Obama's earlier and less successful "Let's Make Them Love Us!" plan.
In the past year, Obama has repeatedly apologized to Muslims for America's "mistakes."
He has apologized to Iran for President Eisenhower's taking out loon Mohammad Mossadegh, before Mossadegh turned a comparatively civilized country into a Third World hellhole. You know, like the Ayatollah has.
He has apologized to the entire Muslim world for the French and English colonizing them -- i.e. building them flush toilets.
He promised to shut down Guantanamo. And he ordered the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to be tried in the same courthouse that tried Martha Stewart.
There was also Obama's 90-degree-bow tour of the East and Middle East. For his next visit, he plans to roll on his back and have his belly scratched like Fido.
Despite favorable reviews in The New York Times, none of this put an end to Islamic terrorism.
So now, I gather, our only strategy is to hope the terrorists' bombs keep fizzling.
There's no other line of defense. In the case of the Times Square car bomber, the Department of Homeland Security failed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed, the CIA failed and the TSA failed. (However, the Department of Alert T-Shirt Vendors came through with flying colors, as it always does.)
Only the New York Police Department, a New York street vendor and Shahzad's Rube Goldberg bomb (I do hope he's not offended by how Jewish that sounds -- Obama can apologize) prevented a major explosion in Times Square.
Even after the NYPD de-wired the smoking car bomb, produced enough information to identify the bomb-maker, and handed it all to federal law enforcement authorities tied up in a bow, the federal government's crack "no-fly" list failed to stop Shahzad from boarding a plane to Dubai.
To be fair, at Emirates Airlines, being on a "no-fly" list makes you eligible for pre-boarding.
Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security should consider creating a "Really, REALLY No-Fly" list.
Contrary to the wild excuses being made for the federal government on all the TV networks Monday night, it's now clear that this was not a wily plan of federal investigators to allow Shahzad to board the plane in order to nab his co-conspirators. It was a flub that nearly allowed Shahzad to escape.
Meanwhile, on that same Monday at JFK airport, approximately 100,000 passengers took off their shoes, coats, belts and sunglasses for airport security.
But the "highly trained federal force" The New York Times promised us on Oct. 28, 2001, when the paper demanded that airport security be federalized, failed to stop the only guy they needed to stop at JFK last Monday -- the one who planted a bomb in the middle of Times Square days earlier.
So why were 100,000 other passengers harassed and annoyed by the TSA?
The federal government didn't stop the diaper bomber from nearly detonating a bomb over Detroit. It didn't stop a guy on the "No Fly" list from boarding a plane and coming minutes away from getting out of the country.
If our only defense to terrorism is counting on alert civilians, how about not bothering them before they board airplanes, instead of harassing them with useless airport "security" procedures?
Both of the attempted bombers who sailed through airport security, I note, were young males of the Islamic faith. I wonder if we could develop a security plan based on that information?
And speaking of a "highly trained federal force," who's working at the INS these days? Who on earth made the decision to allow Shahzad the unparalleled privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen in April 2009?
Our "Europeans Need Not Apply" immigration policies were absurd enough before 9/11. But after 19 foreign-born Muslims, legally admitted to the U.S., murdered 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington in a single day, couldn't we tighten up our admission policies toward people from countries still performing stonings and clitorectomies?
The NYPD can't be everyplace.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Ann Coulter on Obama's White House Correspondents Dinner Speech
She gets some big laughs but it was more of a statement than a joke.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Michelle O's Fashin Designer Goes Out Of Business
Recently it was noticed that a sign was posted in the window of Maria Pinto's boutique which read "Closeout Sale."
Who cares right? Michelle cares. She cares because Maria Pinto is her favorite designer. Poor Michelle can't wear her favorite designer now because of her husbands poor management of the economy. Things have gotten worse since he took office and it's about time the Obamas felt it (albeit in this little way) like the rest of us.
Maybe Michelle will harass Barack about it so bad that he leaves his socialist ideas that have no standing in the marketplace of ideas and turn to capitalism....yeah right.
Read the story here.
Who cares right? Michelle cares. She cares because Maria Pinto is her favorite designer. Poor Michelle can't wear her favorite designer now because of her husbands poor management of the economy. Things have gotten worse since he took office and it's about time the Obamas felt it (albeit in this little way) like the rest of us.
Maybe Michelle will harass Barack about it so bad that he leaves his socialist ideas that have no standing in the marketplace of ideas and turn to capitalism....yeah right.
Read the story here.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Two of My Fav's Go Head to Head
Watch here.
I think Beck is right. Holder this week flip flopped on the Miranda issue. First he wanted to Mirandize terrorists and all of a sudden he doesn't want to anymore. This makes no sense. O'Reilly says that he made the switch because of the low public support for Mirandizing terrorists. This is crazy. He didn't let those Black Panthers off the hook when the blogosphere went crazy about it. There is more to this than what O'Reilly thinks.
Beck thinks that Holder changed his mind so that Tea Partiers and other right wingers can be detained with out being Mirandized if things progressed to that. This isn't so far fetched either. Beck makes his case here:
Although I don't think I like Miranda rights to begin with, since they are in place already I have to agree with Beck on this.
I think Beck is right. Holder this week flip flopped on the Miranda issue. First he wanted to Mirandize terrorists and all of a sudden he doesn't want to anymore. This makes no sense. O'Reilly says that he made the switch because of the low public support for Mirandizing terrorists. This is crazy. He didn't let those Black Panthers off the hook when the blogosphere went crazy about it. There is more to this than what O'Reilly thinks.
Beck thinks that Holder changed his mind so that Tea Partiers and other right wingers can be detained with out being Mirandized if things progressed to that. This isn't so far fetched either. Beck makes his case here:
Although I don't think I like Miranda rights to begin with, since they are in place already I have to agree with Beck on this.
Obama Had An Affair?
The National Enquirer is claiming that they have information that shows President Obama had an affair with a former campaign volunteer.
Read about it here.
Is this true? I don't know. Don't discard the information because it is from the National Enquirer though. Nobody believed it when they claimed they had information that John Edwards was having an affair while his cancer stricken wife battled cancer but it was true.
Read about it here.
Is this true? I don't know. Don't discard the information because it is from the National Enquirer though. Nobody believed it when they claimed they had information that John Edwards was having an affair while his cancer stricken wife battled cancer but it was true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
