The Old Gray Hag, aka the New York Times, pulls a great John Kerry, in a single sentence:
But this seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding, or even to point out that it took what may become the worst natural disaster in American history to pry President Bush out of his vacation.
Emphasis mine. Ignoring the obvious point that (1) presidents are NEVER truly on vacation (on call at a moment’s notice) and (2) no one is in DC right now (Democrats or Republicans), this sentence illustrates that the NYT (and their brethren in the MSM) are so hopelessly liberal that even when they call for calm and insist on a moratorium on finger-pointing…they can’t help themselves, putting in one more dig at Bush. They simply cannot resist the template!
Translation: “Don’t point fingers. BUSH SUCKS! Oops… Uh, OK, starting over…beginning…NOW!”
Nope, no liberal media bias.
Don’t liberals fancy themselves as generous and compassionate people? True, they mean with other people’s money, but still…
I surmised yesterday that a large number of liberals cared more about Africa’s AID problem and about Asia when it was hit by tsunamis last year than they care about (red states) Louisiana and Mississippi. Libs were screaming for help for the Africans and Asians (rightfully so), but I wonder why no such screams have come from their pieholes for their countrymen along the Gulf Coast.
Well, great minds think alike. The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy makes a similar, albeit funnier, explanation:
Lastly, with Hurricane Katrina rapidly becoming America’s version of the Tsunami of Southeast Asia, I’d hope celebrities would be lining up to donate some of their millions. I don’t think it’s happened yet. That “right-leaning” company, Walmart has, though. Maybe that turned the Liberal Elite off.
I can hear Paris and Cameron and Gwyneth now: “Ugh, Walmart people are dirty. We can’t be associated with them!”
You can be sure that when Africa needs help again, George Clooney and his marry musicians will quickly assemble Live Aid 45, even though they never asked for it. The arrogant condescension by the lefties thus continues.
Ouch…the evil capitalist oppressor Wal-Mart is even stepping up to help!
AIDS in Africa? A concert to raise money and awareness. Tsunamis in Asia? High profile appearances and charity drives by liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike. Hurricane devastates the Gulf Coast? Liberals take their time, implying a not-so-subtle “Screw you, you inbred hicks! That’ll teach you to have a culture contrary to ours! And you remember that during the next election cycle, too!” I’m certain that they will remember, indeed.
You have to laugh at the moonbats now, more than ever. They hitched their wagon to this mare, and she’s got a bum leg! However, they’ve invested too much political capital in this nutjob that they have to ride her until she drops. Hat tip to a few sources, especially Moonbattery.
media whore grieving mother has a new agenda: stopping the Blue Angels from performing. No doubt she will work tirelessly in this endeavor for her dear Casey, who (I’m sure she’ll tell us when she channels his spirit again, John Edwards style) was mortified by their repugnant existence. I mean, surely Casey would want the Blue Angels to be grounded until this capitalistic, imperialistic, Bushitlerburton war ends!
Oh, yeah…the story:
The woman leading protests against President Bush’s conduct of the Iraq war will protest a Blue Angels air show in Brunswick, Maine, next month.
Bruce Gagnon (GAHNG’-yuhn) of Maine Veterans for Peace says Cindy Sheehan will be the featured guest at a protest outside the Brunswick Naval Air Station on September tenth.
Who are the Maine Veterans for Peace, and why the hostility to the Blue Angels? From their own words:
to protest the false god idolatry of the Blue Angels Air Show, whose “ooh-&-aah”performances have one purpose: to promote badly-lagging military recruitment (sic) to protest the obscene waste of American tax dollars to stage these Blue Angels’ multi-million dollar extravaganzas
Any money that the left can’t give to winos or welfare moms is wasted, I suppose.
In addition to Mother Moonbat, this “veterans” group will also have a guest speaker named Kathy Kelly. Click the link to her name to see some of the anti-American drivel she’s spewed over the years. One anti-US and pro-UN pearl of wisdom: “The UN’s relationship to the US is that of a battered woman to an abusive partner.”
I don’t know how to break it to these “beacons of brilliance”, but Americans adore the Blue Angels, so their moonbat message is likely not to be received well (nor covered by the national MSM much, either)! They might as well tell all kindergarten students that Santa isn’t real, while they’re at it.
Defending Sheehan at this point is like defending the alcoholic aunt in your family by telling people that she’s not AS DRUNK as she usually is!
You’d think that a catastrophe like Katrina’s damage would bring everyone together to help. You’d be wrong. Libs just want to bitch and bellyache. Remember how everyone came together when Sumatra was rocked by tsunamis? I guess liberals are all for coming together to help another (non-evil, non-imperialist) country, but once damage like that hits America…well, screw those rednecks! Besides, Louisiana and Mississippi are red states anyway, right? Probably serves them right, huh moonbats?
Yesterday I documented how the moonbats were already pegging Hurricane Katrina on Bush. Part of the liberal blogs’ talking points went like this: “Too many Louisiana National Guardsmen are in Iraq, and as a result, Louisiana is ill-prepared and underequipped with the necessary emergency personnel.” Problem is, that’s not true:
“Only about half of available forces are mobilized in Louisiana and forces are available from neighboring states if needed,” said Lt. Col. Mike Milord, a spokesman at National Guard headquarters outside Washington.
Some 3,500 Army National Guardsmen from Louisiana were deployed to help hurricane victims and another 3,000 were on standby.
Anyway, last night the MSM picked up the leftist blogosphere ravings and ran with it:
LARRY KING: Do you have adequate National Guard members? Because I know you have a lot of National Guard forces in Iraq.
PAULA ZAHN: With so many National Guard troops involved in Iraq, thousands of civilian volunteers are now stepping up to the plate.
WENDELL GOLER: Critics have warned the National Guard deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have left states with too few troops to respond to emergencies.
LESTER HOLT: Interesting to note that of the 11,000 National Guard members in Louisiana, about 3,000 are currently deployed in Iraq.
Interesting, isn’t it? When the blogosphere exposed “See? B.S.” lies and forgeries last year, the MSM had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the story. Now, the nutbar blogs run with some talking points, and the MSM is all over it like Janet Reno on a Waco church. Also, as V th K notes at Moonbattery, the press and the left (again, pardon the redundancy) is now convinced that the National Guard is anything other than the “club for shiftless playboys” that they were portrayed as merely one year ago.
Nope…no liberal media bias.
These three sites should refute that nonsense. Too bad the administration has done a pisspoor job of explaining this to the masses.
If you read ONLY one of these (please read all three…they’re not long), read the first one. As Neal Boortz explains: “Here you will read that the United Nations was having a bit of a fit because the United States secretly shipped 4000 pounds of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 highly radioactive items from Iraq to the US a month earlier. The transfer of this material was made to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.”
Uranium? You mean the one that the MSM keeps telling us Bush lied about Iraq trying to obtain in his state of the union speech?
Nope…no liberal media bias.
Moonbat Sheehan, quoted on Brit Hume’s show on Fox News:
“Years from now, when your children read about Camp Casey in the history books, you can say you met Casey’s mom!”
Wow…looks like someone has a Messiah complex and other delusions of grandeur, hmm? Then again, with the leftist army and adulating press (pardon the redundancy) at Crawford, there’s little wonder from where such self-adoration derived.
But remember, folks…this isn’t about her! Nosireebob…It’s about Casey!
The following is satire, but it’s so fake that you’d swear it came from the MSM (Mainstream Media):
Encouraged by their close loss in this week’s special election for a vacant House seat in Ohio, the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has mapped a 50-state “virtual victory” strategy for 2006 and 2008.
“It feels so good to almost win,” said DNC chairman Howard Dean. “We now believe we can rally our base around the hope of down-to-the-wire losses in traditionally Republican districts coast-to-coast.”
While the concept of virtual victory is familiar to the party that nearly won the presidency in 2000 and 2004, this is the first time the DNC will stake millions of dollars on advertising explicitly promoting narrow defeats. The ad campaign is tentatively titled “Close Counts.”
“People need something to believe in,” said Mr. Dean. “And while it’s tough to believe that a party with no coherent platform can return to power, most progressives still believe this is the party of the little guy. Of course, the little guy usually loses, but we want our major donors to be able to say, in the words of Maxwell Smart, ‘missed it by that much.'”
I noticed in last year’s presidential election, Kerry adopted the same strategy Gore adopted in 2000 (screw the South, lobby the Midwest)…with the same results. Isn’t the definition of insanity “Doing the same things over and over, but expecting different results”?
That didn’t take long, did it?
Leftist bloggers jumped on the “Blame Bush” bandwagon faster than Barney Frank on a Key West cruise ship. From NewsMax:
A handful of liberal bloggers have wasted no time politicizing the Hurricane Katrina disaster, alleging that the Iraq war has stripped New Orleans of National Guard protection and blasting President Bush for not dealing with global warming.
“So far today, I’ve looked at Global Warming and Katrina and the crisis resulting from Louisiana’s National Guard being in Iraq instead of defending their state,” complains the “Swing State” blog.
They go on to complain that Bush is on vacation. It’s a lost cause to explain to these nimrods that a President is never on vacation. After all, whether he’s in D.C. or Texas, he’s still not in New Orleans…right? Then again, I’m sure that these dope-smoking unemployable halfwits wish Bush was in “the Big Easy” (for those of you in blue states, “the Big Easy” is a nickname for New Orleans, not for Bill Clinton).
The gift that keeps on giving. Hat tip to Little Green Footballs.
|Here’s the picture that the MSM is running with, of such a spontaneous and touching moment at Camp Casey:||Zooming out, we see the MSM swarm of a clearly manufactured event:|
Anyone suddenly get reminded of the footage of Bill Clinton walking on the beach at Normandy and (as sheer luck would have it) seeing rocks not native to that beach that he “spontaneously” formed into a commemorative cross? As with this photo-op, the press ate the Clinton photo-op up like Michael Moore at a Chinese buffet.
I haven’t commented on this yet because I wanted to see how this played out. There are still a lot of questions about Able Danger, but we may begin seeing answers soon. Here’s a link to a story about Able Danger: what it is, and where it’s going. Excerpt:
The Senate Intelligence Committee has contacted the White House asking whether it has a copy of a pre-9/11 chart put together by the Able Danger military intelligence team that identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist threat.
Time magazine reports that the Committee “last week drafted a letter asking the White House for a copy” of the politically explosive chart, which Congressman Curt Weldon said he gave to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley two weeks after the 9/11 attacks.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has been at the forefront of this matter, and he’s been madder than Jesse Jackson in a room full of broken TV cameras. He thinks the 9/11 Commission will be discredited (not hard to imagine) for this:
“The 9/11 Commission is trying to spin this because they’re embarrassed at what’s coming out,” Weldon told the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” morning show.
“In two weeks with two staffers, I’ve uncovered more in this regard than they did with 80 staffers and $15 million of taxpayers’ money!”
The Pennsylvania Republican said the truth would come out in hearings planned for this fall:
“This information will ultimately end up in a hearing. Senator Specter is preparing a hearing in the judiciary committee. I talked to Speaker Hastert yesterday on the House side. We will bring people in under oath, and they will swear and they will answer the questions.”
Seems that 9/11 Commission Member Jamie Gorelick (rhymes with “derelict”, ironically enough) was instrumental in erecting (and enforcing) the “wall” that prevented info sharing between agencies during her stay as Reno’s Deputy AG during those “wonderful, peaceful” Clinton years. Perhaps the Commission was trying to protect one of its own by sitting on these Able Danger documents?
Or perhaps Able Danger is all puff with no substance, and Curt Weldon is trying to sell some books. You be the judge.
Hat tip to Van Helsing at Moonbattery for this telling pic:
Sometimes, words are simply unnecessary when you have pictures.
I read this AP story about how Iraq has drafted a constitution, but the Sunni minority have rejected it. I noticed a parallel with American Democrats.
For one, Sunnis are the minority part of the population. Where in the hell do they get off trying to keep the country from progressing towards freedom? I know that they enjoyed power-related privileges when Saddam’s rape rooms were open for business, and they miss those privileges deeply. They beamed with pride as one of their own tortured and brutalized the country for three decades. I guess it is to be expected that they are a tad bit resentful that those “good ol’ days” are no more.
So instead of helping forge an iraq where they would at least have some say-so in the direction of the country…they want to obstruct. They want to hold their breath and turn blue. They want to pick up their ball and go home. They think they need to be consulted in order to bestow legitimacy to the new constitution. Basically, they’d rather their own country go down the tubes than to succeed under the rule of someone other than themselves.
Basically, these characteristics sound like those of American Democrats. Or the elected ones anyway.
See, it seems like American Democrats detest George W. Bush and Republicans so much that they can stomach a number of American defeats if those defeats portray their opposition poorly. Iraq has problems, Afghanistan has problems, Social Security has problems, national security and intelligence have problems…but hey! Let’s just elect Democrats FIRST, then go back and fix those problems! Sure, by the time Dems regain power, I could be dead (we ALL could be dead by then via a smuggled-in nuclear bomb or airborne lethal virus)…but at least Bush and Republicans will look bad!
Sunnis boycotted Iraqi elections in January, to try to cast a pall of illegitimacy over the elections. Do you think if Democrats in this country boycotted the polls here on Election Day that such a boycott would make the American public perceive the new leaders as illegitimate? No, quite the contrary: Americans would see the winner with 70%+ and think “Wow…this guy’s got a mandate!” And by “mandate”, I don’t mean Barney Frank’s plans for this weekend.
Wow. What if Democrats boycotted elections here? Man, would I pay big bucks to make that a reality here in this country or what?
John Thune, who dethroned the detached Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle in the South Dakota Senate race last year, has been ridiculed in the press lately, even by conservative columnist Bob Novak. Why? Because South Dakota’s Ellsworth Air Force Base was on the Pentagon’s list to be closed.
Yessiree, the libs were getting as giddy as a bunch of NOW members watching a k.d. lang concert held at Lickensplit’s Sushi House at the thought of Thune suffering such an embarrassment. They had pretty much already counted his Senate seat falling back into Democrat hands in 2010.
Well, while no one knows what the rest of Thune’s Senate term will hold, we do know this: he pulled off a huge win in this, his first year as South Dakota Senator. Ellsworth will not be closing! The BRAC commission rejected the Pentagon’s recommendation for that base’s closure.
When he told South Dakota that he had the ear of the important people in D.C., he obviously wasn’t kidding. Thune defeated Dasshole in part because he claimed that he would be better positioned to help save the base (since no one in the Bush administration liked Dasshole at all, rendering Little Tommy politically neutered)…and in part because South Dakota is a conservative state and Dasshole was a D.C. liberal leopard who tried to hide his spots. It didn’t work. But I digress…
Why am I a libertarian instead of a Republican? Well, for one, this:
Reagan made a show of his veto. It was a symbolic stroke against government waste, against the Democrats’ tradition of, for example, diverting every federal highway through West Virginia, then naming it after Sen. Robert Byrd.
Fast-forward to 2005. Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. Early on a Saturday morning in August — the day of the week, and the month of the year, least likely to attract media attention — President Bush signed into law a highway bill passed by his own party with more than 6,000 earmarked projects.
Bush signed the bill after sternly telling his party he’d veto any highway bill that spent more than $256 billion. He promptly “adjusted” that figure to $284 billion after complaints from party leaders. The bill Bush ultimately signed came at a price of $286 billion, $295 billion if you count a few provisions disguised to make the bill look cheaper than it actually is. Not exactly holding the line.
What happens when one of their own actually tries to enforce the party’s purported limited government ideology? Not pretty:
Consider the case of Sen. Tom Coburn, another of the few in Congress willing to stand up to unrestrained spending. After a six-year career fighting waste in the House, Coburn won election to the Senate, and began putting administrative holds on his colleagues’ wasteful projects. That didn’t sit well with his fellow Republicans. Coburn’s own party soon filed an ethics complaint against him.
His transgression? Coburn continues his medical practice in Oklahoma in addition to his duties as a U.S. senator. That apparently, is a violation of Senate ethics. Diverting millions of taxpayer dollars to pet projects that bear one’s name and help one get reelected is not an ethical violation, but practicing medicine is.
How utterly shameless these Republican porkers can be!
But perhaps the single member of Congress most afflicted with arrogance-of-power syndrome is Virginia Rep. Tom Davis. Davis headed up the GOP’s campaign to retain control of the House in 2004, and today chairs the House Government Reform Committee. Earlier this spring, it was Davis’ committee that began investigating the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. Of course, Congress has no constitutional authority to tell a private organization what its rules ought to be. No matter. When MLB asked Davis what jurisdiction he had to hold hearings, Davis sent a letter in reply asserting that his committee has jurisdiction “at any time, over any matter.” Any time, any matter. So much for limited government. And this from the chair of the committee in charge of keeping government in check!
Other examples abound in the story.
Greed, arrogance, and power drunkenness have no party alliance.
I received an e-mail from a moonbat asshat who thought that vile invective was an effective way to get me to see his/her/its point of view. I mentioned it in a prior post’s comments. I’ve reflected on this, and I think that I’ve found the #1 underlying problem moonbats have had lately: their messengers.
The best candidate they offered last year to convince the American electorate to dump Bush and move in a different direction? John F’ing Kerry, an effete elitist northeastern liberal who actually did vote for stuff before he didn’t.
The best person chosen to be the leader of their party? The unhinged, screaming, laughable Dr. Howard “Primal Scream” Dean, who goes to red states and insults God, guns, and Southern values.
The best person to get out their anti-war message? Cindy Sheehan, a grieving mother who has shown herself to be a political opportunist, who doubts that Osama bin Laden slaughtered 3,000+ of her countrymen (see prior post), who has admitted to not wanting to meet the President for fear that her 15 minutes of fame will come to a screeching halt, who has been exposed as a liar on multiple occasions in what she did and did not say, and who public opinion polls now show is more unlikeable than likeable. Now, she’s got David Duke and other neo-Nazi groups (on their way to Crawford now) in her corner…strange bedfellows! Yeah, that’s gonna help the anti-war cause!
From National Review:
When asked by reporters, Sheehan said she believes that while she supports the continued hunt for Osama bin Laden she believes the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan and “stop bombing innocent people.” She also described Osama bin Laden as being “allegedly” behind the attacks of 9/11.
Rumor has it that she also believes that her son is “allegedly” dead, her husband is “allegedly” leaving her moonbat ass, London was “allegedly” attacked on 7/7, and the Patriots “allegedly” won the last Super Bowl. Anyone want to bet that the press buries this story like Bill Clinton buries Cuban stogies in Monica’s…uh, blue dress?
Un-freakin’-believable. OK, allegedly un-freakin’-believable.
OK, moonbats, let’s hear your hollow claims that you “support the troops but not the war”! Observe:
The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.”
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan’s vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, “shameless” and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. “[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration,” said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital “distasteful.”
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
“We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever,” Pannell, a member of the Army’s First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
“You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors’ guilt is the worst thing you can deal with,” Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.
“We don’t like them and we don’t like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed,” he said. “[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way.”
I gather that the wounded veteran, Mr. Pannell, doesn’t feel “honored” by these “patriots”? The response from these “patriots” is apparently “Screw you, you ignorant babykiller! We’ll ‘honor’ you any way we damned well please!”
By the way, who is Code Pink?
Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. “There’s no one who will talk about how the other side is good,” she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. “It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven,” she reportedly said.
Don’t look for the MSM to report this stuff, knowing full well that the sight of these moonbats will enrage the American public. But not to worry…no liberal media bias!
Nary a peep from the MSM on this trip down Memory Lane. While everyone gets hot and bothered over the dimwit Robertson’s assertion that we should assassinate Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, time seems to have eased the memory of a Clinton official (and current ABC host) advocating the same thing for a different dictator. Hint: said dictator is one who the left thinks we should have left alone and in power two years ago.
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.
Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.
His headlined? “Why We Should Kill Saddam.”
“Assassination may be Clinton’s best option,” the future “This Week” host urged. “If we can kill Saddam, we should.”
Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was “in a box” and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.
The article explains how Stephie would have advised Clinton how not to violate “international principles”, saying that “What’s unlawful – and unpopular with the allies – is not necessarily immoral.” This statement should send bloodcurdling shrieks of horror from the pieholes of righteously indignant liberals who are angry at Bush for ignoring the French and the Germans. Here’s guessing that had Clinton done the very thing that Stephie proposed, the left would have defended the decision vigorously.
Anywhere in the MSM that you’ll see this comparison? Nope…no liberal media bias.
This is the headline at one of the most hilarious satirical blogs I’ve seen, called The People’s Cube. Here is the link to the satirical story, an excerpt of which follows:
Getting one’s head sawed off might seem like reason for concern, but in fact, ACLU lawyers turning themselves over to their Guantanamo clients for this purpose have gone a long way in addressing Taliban dissatisfaction with the camp’s amenities like poor wi-fi reception.
In an unprecedented display of compassion, volunteers from the ACLU and Amnesty International are lining up to get their heads sawed off by disgruntled Taliban prisoners. This new spirit of international caring has its genesis in the Human Shields tradition.
Another point of optimism is that United States Senator Richard “Dick” Durbin has enthusiastically volunteered to have his head sawed off. “Not even Pol Pot denied his victims three telephone lines in each room, secure remote printing, ergonomic chairs, a microwave, and a whirlpool. Not even the Nazis denied their victims in-room movie channels. Therefore, as a gesture to our guests, and a symbol from America to the world, I will proudly march into a cell and plead with the guests to please saw my head off. They are our customers, and our customers are always right.”
Nice to see that when the ACLU isn’t tying up our courts trying to get IRS non-profit statuses removed from churches, they’re assuaging their liberal guilt by allowing themselves to be decapitated!
For those of you in blue states, the above story is satire, which means it’s not really true.
Hat tip to the The Neolibertarian Network for this post.
See if this sounds familiar to you:
A military officer gives an interview to a reporter for the MSM (in this case, the Old Gray Hag, New York Times). The officer gives a positive assessment of a certain development in the war, and the reporter rushes to print with a negative slant. You almost have to wonder if the reporter was listening to the interview, or if he had his story already typed up and was just going through the motions. I mean, chances are that the reporter wouldn’t have even wasted time talking to the officer if not for the Jayson Blair “made-up sources” scandal. So now the reporter actually has to get off of his duff and pretend to interview the
wretched babykiller military officer! Story:
Last year, senior leaders of the Army became aware of technological developments which make it possible to improve the “Interceptor” body armor worn by our troops.`
The “Interceptor” consists of a vest, two SAPI (small arms protective insert) plates worn in the front and the back, and “backing” material around the plates. The plates are made of boronic carbide, the second hardest substance known to man (only diamonds are harder) but fairly light weight.
The plates will shatter a standard rifle bullet, and the backing catches the bullet fragments to prevent injuries from shrapnel.
Yet though the specifications weren’t set until early in January, new plates were being manufactured — and delivery begun to U.S. troops — in March. Those familiar with the Pentagon’s procurement process recognize this as lightning speed.
Here’s how the story was presented by Moss in the New York Times Aug. 14th: “For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents.
Americans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, because all news about Iraq is presented as bad news, even when it isn’t.
The leftists today want bad news from Iraq, because their hatred for Bush overrides the love of their own country (for those that actually love their country).
By now, many of you know the story. Michael Graham, talk radio host in the belly of the beast, Washington, D.C. (no offense to my dear friend and D.C. resident Kira!), was fired for saying less than flattering things about Islam that pro-terror group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) found offensive. Graham’s story is here, an excerpt follows:
I was fired, according to the termination letter I received from ABC Radio, for “offensive” comments I made on the air regarding Islam and terrorism. Coincidentally, all of the comments deemed offensive by the Council of American-Islamic Relations were listed in my ABC disciplinary memo.
I was also fired, according to ABC management, for my refusal to apologize for said comments. They further ordered me to agree to “additional outreach efforts” to those “offended” by my opinions. Would I be flipping burgers at the local mosque? Singing “Kumbaya” with CAIR? Hugs for Hamas? Management wouldn’t say.
…few public advocacy groups have as little legitimacy or credibility as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Some of their members have been jailed for terrorism. Others have been deported. They are still reluctant to criticize Hamas and Hezbollah, and it took them three weeks after 9/11 to condemn Al Qaeda!
Getting drummed out of talk radio by CAIR is like being chased out of your junior-high teacher’s job by the guys at the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Graham also notes how his crime was offending a minority group, and that had he said something disparaging about Christianity (such as calling the Catholic Church a haven for pedophiles, or calling the Christian faith a terror-sponsoring organization because of abortion-clinic and Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph), he would still be in D.C. today. He offended the P.C.
gods deities/druids, and for that, he must have his head sawed off by the blackhoods on the altar of “sensitivity.”
Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. A station in Los Angeles, KFI-AM, has picked him up. “KFI has an extended offer for Michael Graham to fill in at the station because KFI still values free speech,” says KFI producer, Robin Bertolucci. Shame on ABC-Disney for having no such policy. Disney can have “Gay Days” at their theme parks, due to their “committment to diversity”, but the catchphrase rings hollow in light of their lack of committment to said “diversity” when it comes to opinions on their radio networks.
We’ve seen that used here a few times, haven’t we, folks? The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up. If, on the other hand, you believe that America should disengage from all foreign wars, you may feel free not to serve in the military.
Moonbats now, all of a sudden, have a “love” for the military the way that an abused woman has a “love” for her shack-up drunk boyfriend. Ben Shapiro has an excellent, excellent column. Excerpt:
The media salivation over military mother Cindy Sheehan has renewed talk of a “chickenhawk” contingent controlling American foreign policy. According to the left, which has latched onto Sheehan more tightly than a barnacle latches onto a whale, the only people qualified to speak about American foreign policy are pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. Everyone else must shut up.
Representative democracy requires people to vote on foreign policy, whether or not they have served in the military, just as it requires people to vote on police policy whether or not they have served on the police force. The Constitution grants the president power as commander in chief, whether or not he has served in the military, and grants Congress power over the purse strings, whether or not any member has served in the military. Our system is built on the foundational idea that all Americans have a common stake in defining foreign policy — foreign policy isn’t the exclusive domain of military members.
Funny how moonbats were OK with Clinton, who actively avoided military service and whose avoidance of said service elicited giggles from moonbats akin to teenage girls at a Justin Timberlake concert, being the Commander-in-Chief. Actually, how does the left really see the military, and vice versa?
Of course, despite their multitudinous statements about how military men and women know the costs of war best, the last thing in the world the left wants is for the military to control foreign policy. Despite the left’s implicit assumption that any soldier who sees live fire immediately transforms into Mahatma Gandhi, military members, by and large, are hawks. A Military Times poll in late 2003 showed that 57 percent of those surveyed considered themselves Republicans, and only 13 percent considered themselves Democrats. Among officers, the numbers were even more disparate: 66 percent Republican, and 9 percent Democrat. Certain Democrats in 2000 attempted to block the votes of thousands of military members in Florida. Despite all of John Kerry’s posturing, military members and their families trusted President Bush by a 69-24 margin, according to an October 2004 poll by National Annenberg Election Survey.
In truth, the left would regard military control of foreign policy as an unmitigated disaster. In the view of those like Michael Moore, the only good American soldiers are those who are unemployed or dead. … Dead American soldiers are good since they can be used as pawns by foreign policy doves: body bag pictures and grieving mothers — all of it undermines American morale and support for strong foreign policy. … The leftist claim that soldiers are victims means that they are boobs and ignoramuses, incapable of choosing a lifestyle that risks death in defense of American freedoms.
Implicitly, then, the “chickenhawk” argument rejects all options aside from civilian pacifist control of American foreign policy. If all soldiers are victims, too stupid or ignorant to make up their own minds about joining the military, how can we trust them with foreign policy? And according to the “chickenhawk” argument, civilian hawks cannot control foreign policy. The only ones left are complete pacifist loons like Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington. How convenient!
Part I of Shapiro’s “chickenhawk un-American” column is here. Best quote: “If they [American soldiers] fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.”
I guess I should stop cheering for the Jacksonville Jaguars. After all, I’ve never played for them.
I’m really trying to stay away from the Cindy Sheehan thing. But every time I turn around, something new pops up. This time, it’s another abdication of responsibility from the MSM…not surprisingly, CBS (aka “See? B.S.”).
Speaking earlier this month to a reporter for CBS News, she actually called the Islamic terrorists “freedom fighters.” The very bastards that slaughtered her son. Of course, the MSM will neglect to report this because such a nutbar statement would undermine her credibility, and the MSM has hooked their horses to the Sheehan wagon. Nope, the media will focus on nutbar statements by Pat Robertson, but ignore those by their media darling Jihad Cindy.
Sheehan’s comments were recorded on video by Veterans for Peace, a group pushing for Bush’s impeachment. (Editor’s note: The video of Cindy Sheehan is approximately 30 minutes long, and requires several minutes to load, even with a high-speed connection.)
“But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country.”
“What’s her problem then?” asked one messageboard poster on FreeRepublic.com. “Her son was killed by a ‘freedom fighter.’ She should be proud.”
Wow. Just…wow. Innocent people, Cindy? The ones blowing up Iraqi kids who accept candy from soldiers, or who try to kill people for having the unmitigated gall to vote?
President Bush said after 9/11 that you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists. Unfortunately for the memory of the brave Casey Sheehan, his own mother has chosen the latter. But don’t take my word for it:
Sheehan referred to her son, Casey, not as a war hero, but rather a war victim.
“If I was thinking straight, which I wasn’t, I never would have allowed a military funeral, and I wouldn’t have buried him in his uniform,” Sheehan said.
No doubt that the moonbats will smear me (like I give a wet fart on a dry January Monday) for accurately pointing out Jihad Cindy’s own words. She’s a media darling because she fits the MSM template of anti-Bush and anti-war. Yet CBS’ Mark Knoller gets a quote straight from the horse’s mouth (amongst a gaggle of other reporters), and sits on it? Fake documents…leading headline news. Direct quote…(yawn).
Nope…no liberal media bias.
The MSM on Tuesday jumped all over Pat Robertson’s Monday suggestion that Venezuela’s leftist President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated soon, in order to avoid a costly war down the road. Stupid comments, Pat, especially from a Christian leader. Hell, the only thing stupider is the MSM’s reaction to it. From Newsbusters:
All three broadcast network evening newscasts featured full stories, with ABC’s World News Tonight making it the lead. Anchor Charles Gibson snidely forwarded: “A popular Christian broadcaster says assassination is the way to deal with one world leader who criticizes the U.S. Some ask, ‘is this Pat Robertson’s definition of Christian love?'” CBS played a clip of Donald Rumsfeld dismissing Robertson as just another example of how “private citizens say all kinds of things all the time,” and Gloria Borger then countered by touting Robertson’s prominence: “But Robertson is not just any private citizen. He’s a former Republican presidential candidate with a large evangelical following.”
Robertson “may have no clout with the Bush administration, but you wouldn’t know that from watching CNN today,” FNC’s Brit Hume noted in reviewing the competing cable network’s all-day obsession — a focus which continued into the evening with Robertson leading the 7pm EDT Anderson Cooper 360 (hosted by Heidi Collins), the 8pm EDT Paula Zahn Now and the 10pm EDT NewsNight with Aaron Brown who tried to hold the whole religious right culpable as he asserted that “political leaders worried it makes the so-called Christian Right seem neither Christian nor right.” Robertson was also the first topic covered by MSNBC’s 7pm Hardball with Chris Matthews and 8pm Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
The press hopes they can take the comments of a foolish old man and tie them to represent Republicans, libertarians, Christians, or any other right-of-center group whose existence offends the left. However, unlike how the left embraces their kooks, the right usually denounces theirs.
Nope…no liberal media bias.
Political correctness just took one in the derriere, courtesy of the Florida State Seminoles!
Seminole Nation came through, bombarding the NCAA with angry phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and letters. The NCAA admitted that they were not expecting that level of reaction. See, when a tiny but vocal minority got a hold of their ear, the NCAA thought they were hearing from a majority. They were wrong.
The NCAA has removed Florida State University from its list of schools with “offensive” and “abusive” mascots. They correctly noted what we’ve been shouting for years: the unique relationship that the university has with the Seminole Tribe of Florida is a thing of respect, not degradation. It is irrelevant what a bunch of white liberals or non-Seminoles think of the mascot. The day that the Seminole Tribe of Florida thinks that the usage is wrong, that will be the day that the university should drop the mascot.
Fortunately, a bunch of politically-correct outsider do-gooders won’t be making that call. Score one…for the good guys!
The story is here, but I think the headline is poorly worded. The story is about how the California (where else?) Supreme Court ruled that “estranged” gay/lesbian couples who have kids together via the wonders of modern medical technology (or however they do it) are treated as divorcing parents when it comes to child support. Issues of your own opinions on gay marriage or parenting aside, here’s what I find interesting:
1. The headline. “High Court Protects Kids of Calif. Gays”? What about the article implies that this is about child protection? Since when does child support equal child protection? Don’t get me wrong, I’m 1,000% in favor of child support when couples split, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it “child protection”, be it hetero or homo couples.
2. The reaction of the anti-gay marriage side. “Today’s ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms,” said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. “That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children.” Huh?
Whether Staver likes it or not, the fact is that children do live in two-mom or two-dad households. Is that wrong? Maybe and maybe not (I’m not trying to Kerry this question…you’ll see where I’m going), but the fact is that these arrangements exist! If they exist, they must be acknowledged as a household that has children, and irrespective of any harm (perceived or real) to the kids growing up in such a household, the fact is that it is not illegal in California (and other states).
Thus, if children are lawfully living with two parental units, how does it harm society in saying that in the event of a split, one parent must provide child support for the kids that he/she legally shared with someone else? Honestly, I am offended that the gay parents who resist paying support try arguing that since they weren’t legally married, they weren’t legally parents and thus aren’t legally liable for supporting children they agreed to! I mean, you can’t say “We just want to be the same as everyone else” and then say “Uh…except here!”
For the record, I fully support civil unions for gays, and I oppose gay marriage. Marriage, in my view, is a religiously-binding act (even if atheists get married…sucks for them). However, I also think that the federal government should not get involved in the gay marriage debate. Nothing in the Constitution says that it’s the federal government’s job to meddle with marriage, hetero or otherwise. The states are taking care of it, and with the exception of MA, no state has signed onto the idea of gay marriage as of yet.
Maybe you agree with all, some, or none of what I wrote. As always, I welcome your comments!
Unhinged, far-left, conspiracy theory kooks at Media Matters for America have stepped in some dog squeeze, it seems. From the Media Report:
The left-wing organization Media Matters (MMFA) appears to have been caught red-handed in an ugly and false smear attack against Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM) and president of America’s Survival, Inc. In an August 19, 2005, item entitled, “AIM’s Kincaid posted ‘letter’ from Afghan ambassador thanking him for petition to extradite Newsweek’s Isikoff,” Media Matters clearly implies that Kincaid fabricated a letter from an Afghan ambassador. However, every indication reveals that Kincaid did no such thing.
Media Matters posted the following in the item’s first paragraph:
Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid has posted a “letter” on his America’s Survival Inc. website that he claims to have received from Afghan ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad. The “letter” thanks Kincaid for sending a petition to the ambassador calling for the extradition of Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff to Afghanistan. But the “letter” from the ambassador, which makes reference to “the over six hundred supporters” who purportedly signed petitions calling for Isikoff’s extradition, bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job.
By putting quotation marks around the word letter, by saying the “letter” was one that “he claims to have received,” and by asserting that it “bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job,” the implication from Media Matters could not be more clear: Kincaid posted a bogus letter. Another paragraph also analyzes the formatting (i.e., html, gif) of the letter.
The truth? Less than one day later, Kincaid posted scanned images (.pdf) of the actual letter and the actual envelope in which it was received. Kincaid also posted a public statement denouncing Media Matters for their “false and defamatory charge.”
What’s astonishing about their ugly attack, as Kincaid points out, is that Media Matters could have verified the authenticity of the letter with one simple phone call or correspondence. Instead, they simply went out and besmirched the guy!
This shameful episode reveals a vicious and callous nature of the people at Media Matters. It also obliterates any remaining shred of the organization’s credibility.
With the lies from NARAL, Air America, CBS (aka “See? B.S.”), Newsweak, and now MMFA (aka “Manufacuring, Making up, and Faking Accounts”), this is beginning to become quite comical.
Nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan. Really.
Real Clear Politics has a great post about how to translate leftist terms when defining the war:
To be antiwar can mean one of two things: you may be opposed to all war or you might just be opposed to a war in particular. A Democratic party fitting the first definition would never win another national election in this country again. Ever.
Thus many on the left who make up the base of the Democratic party have gone to great lengths to say they support the use of U.S. military force under appropriate circumstances (like, say, Afghanistan) and that their objections are confined to this president and the war in Iraq.
But if you take some of the arguments this group (which spans the “netroots” crowd at Daily Kos all the way to the New York Times op-ed page) has marshalled against President Bush and recast them in generic terms, you’ll see they read like a list of “out clauses” tucked inside a “We Support the Use of U.S. Military Force” contract:
The Chickenhawk Clause: No administration official may be involved in planning or supporting a war effort unless they have served in the military. (This clause applies to members of the public as well).
The Shared Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless a vast majority of the public share in some sort of common sacrifice which will most likely take the form of increasing the tax burden on the public.
The Elite Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless 1) all military age children among the highest ranking civilian and military officials in the country are forced to serve and 2) a certain (but as yet undefined) percentage of combat deaths must come from soldiers with “privileged” backgrounds.
The Grieving Parent Clause: Mothers and fathers of soldiers killed in action are given “absolute” moral authority. Therefore wars may be fought only until the mother or father of a soldier killed in action objects to either the policy or the leadership of the administration.
The Presidential Vacation Clause: During the course of any conflict where U.S. soldiers are in harm’s way, presidents are not allowed to take vacation but instead must remain at the White House “burning the midnight oil” to demonstrate military personnel are a priority.
The War Profiteering Clause: The Pentagon is allowed to hire private contractors to assist in military logistics and reconstruction projects provided that 1) no member of the administration has ever had any contact with the company and 2) the company is not allowed to make a profit.
Of course, one of the primary requirements for the left to support U.S. military force is winning the approval of the UN Security Council. Taken together these requirements would seem to make it almost impossible for the left to support U.S. military action under any circumstance. Or will all these rules not apply when Hillary or some other Democrat is sitting in the White House?
Good news? What, you just saved a bunch of money on your car insurance by switching to Geico?
No, there may be an upcoming silver lining on all this high gas prices ordeal. Steve Chapman’s column is short, encouraging, and worth reading. Excerpt:
The going rate has been pushed up in the last couple of years by rising fuel consumption. But Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research Inc., says global demand has fallen short of predictions this year. Not only that, but crude oil inventories have been expanding in the U.S., which should help push prices down.
It turns out the law of supply and demand has not been repealed: When the price of oil rises, people consume less than they would otherwise. The longer oil remains expensive, the more people will look for ways to conserve it. Already, car buyers are flocking to gas-stingy hybrids, which were once regarded as the equivalent of living in a yurt.
Lynch expects prices to drop to $40 a barrel by the end of the year, if not sooner. He’s not alone: The Russian government has drafted its 2006 budget assuming that’s all it will get for its oil. That would bring gas prices down in the range of $2 a gallon.
Emphasis mine. While $2 a gallon as the national average still sucks, I think we all begrudgingly acknowledge that the days of cheap gas are long gone. Plus, $2 per gallon is much, much better than we have right now. Four year ago, I shrieked when gas hit $1.75, and who wouldn’t give Hillary Clinton’s left wing to return to those prices again?
Granted, all of this is just theory, but it sounds like it has valid logical points. We’ll see soon enough.
From the AP:
Scotland Yard believes it thwarted an al-Qaida sarin gas attack on the British Parliament, according to an internal police document.
The plot to unleash the deadly nerve gas on the House of Commons was hatched last year and uncovered through decoded e-mails on computers seized from terror suspects in Britain and Pakistan, the Sunday Times reported, citing the police memo it obtained.
Good for the Brits! They didn’t wait to clear their findings with CAIR, the ACLU, or MoveOn first!
Let’s see how long it takes until the moonbats blame this attempt at mass murder on Bush or Blair. You know, the usual: “If they had just left those poor ol’ Islamofascists alone, then there would be no need to kill innocent British civilians and tourists, now would there?”
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett