Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

38th anniversary

Old Soldier reminded me of this yesterday, so my apologies for being a day late (story of my life, huh?). Yesterday was the 38th anniversary of Chappaquiddick, where, as you all know, Ted Kennedrunk killed a woman in his car by allowing her to drown while he wandered up the road and pondered the political ramifications of his actions. Full details here, if you can stomach it.

I do not ever wish physical harm on an American politician simply because they are ideological opposites. As much as I detest Reid, Pelosi, et al, I do not wish ill upon them. Having said that, God forgive me but I find myself wishing ill on Ted Kennedrunk every time that pickled murderous windbag opens his ample cakehole and bloviates about anybody being morally bankrupt liars! The fact that many on the left gravitate towards this cretin is proof positive of the inherent depravity of those people.

July 20, 2007 Posted by | Kennedrunk | Leave a comment

Headline of the day

File this under “things I couldn’t make up if I tried”, from the Montgomery Advertiser. Headline: “Local Obesity Conference Draws Large Crowd”

July 20, 2007 Posted by | headlines, non-political | Leave a comment

Quote of the day

From the San Franistan fishwrap:

Democratic Senate leaders knew going into Wednesday’s procedural roll call on their proposal to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq that they didn’t have the votes to win, but victory wasn’t their goal.

What else is new?

July 20, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, quote of the day | Leave a comment

Olbermann’s "chickenhawk" slur turned on him

Ace does a wonderful job of ripping the mind-numbed leftist myrmidons’ “chickenhawk” reflex, in light of that little-watched MSNBC moonbat’s recent rant:

Olbermann’s Theatre of the Absurd ends with his calling upon Bush to go to Baghdad and fight “his war” himself.

Again, the chickenhawk charge — one should be willing to fight wars one advocates, yes?

But the trouble is that part of Olbermann’s, and the entire left’s, schtick is that they’re really super-tough guys after all — not cheese-eating surrender monkeys — because, while they don’t want to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, they’re just totally gung ho to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan. In fact, the subtext very often seems to be that it’s just the stubborn President Bush who is preventing them from grabbing a rifle and hopping on the next plane to Waziristan.

Question for Mr. Olbermann:

When, Sir, can we expect word of your enlistment? To fight in what is, by your own admission — nay, bold proclamation — what is in fact your war?

Breaking the MSM embargo, Ralph Peters finally makes the point I’ve been making for years.

The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier. It doesn’t say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever – although that’s what the Dems imply.

In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which “veteran warrior” wants to go get them?

Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.

Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we’ll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we’ll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We’ll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.

Oh, and Pakistan’s a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.

Barack Obama, strategist and military expert. Who knew?

I don’t believe any Democrat actually wants to fight wars against Al Qaeda, or anyone else, anywhere at all. But they claim they do, they advocate for huge invasions of 100 million strong nuclear-armed countries, and of course they vote for any stray declaration of war that should reach their desks within 60 days of an election.

So if they are all gung-ho to finally “finish the job Bush wouldn’t” in Islamabad and Karachi, I trust they know we need more troops — and the army does in fact permit liberals to serve openly as such. There is no “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule about being a leftist jagoff, I can assure them all.

So:

When’s the big sign-up day all you super badass warriors have planned? Is it a big surprise you’re waiting to spring on the rest of the country?

I trust they’re just waiting to receive and read the new Harry Potter book, and then they’ll be training to storm the beaches of Southern Pakistan presently.

No thinking required for Olby and his ilk.

July 20, 2007 Posted by | Afghanistan, Iraq, moonbats, Olbermann | Leave a comment

Dems side with terrorists and trial lawyers over American security

Feel free to question not just their patriotism, but their sanity. From Hot Air:

Whose water are the Democrats carrying on this? It seems to come down to two suspects — trial lawyers or the mau mauers at CAIR. Or both.

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the “John Doe” protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling. Because, of course, racial profiling is so much worse than losing a city full of innocent people.

Update: It’s just breaking that the Democrats actually spiked the John Doe proposal in committee. They have exposed to Americans to more terrorism and the threat of lawsuit at the same time. They really ought to reap the whirlwind for this.

If the Democrats get their way, ordinary Americans like Brian Morganstern will have to weigh the threat of lawsuit when they decide whether to trust their gut when they see or hear something suspicious. Some will choose to avoid the lawsuit, and Americans will die.

As for me, I am John Doe.

As am I.

July 20, 2007 Posted by | ambulance chasers, CAIR, moonbats, religion of peace, shameful | Leave a comment

Plame lawsuit chucked to the weeds

From My Way News:

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame lost a lawsuit Thursday that demanded money from Bush administration officials whom she blamed for leaking her agency identity.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to disclose her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband’s criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame’s lawyers said from the beginning the suit would be a difficult case to make. Public officials normally are immune from such suits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame’s identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration’s march to war in Iraq.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby’s 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.

Though Bates said the case raised “important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials,” he said there was no legal basis for the suit.

Lawyers have said courts traditionally are reluctant to wade into these types of cases, particularly when Congress has established other resolutions.

In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame’s claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.

Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

“The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson’s comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory,” Bates wrote.

“But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration’s handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants’ duties as high-level Executive Branch officials,” Bates said.

The suit was dismissed “purely on jurisdictional grounds”, huh? Well, as Texas Rainmaker (himself an attorney) points out…:

For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution.

Put that in your bong and smoke it, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.

July 20, 2007 Posted by | Plamegate | Leave a comment