Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Ace:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good grief…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The basic points of the plan are:

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

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

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

And the revenues generated will go to pay for:

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

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

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

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

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

Senate raising federal govt’s debt ceiling…again

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

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

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

“We have no choice but to approve it. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling soon, the U.S. Treasury will default for the first time in its history,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.

But Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, urged lawmakers to reject the debt increase and concentrate on spending cuts instead.

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

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

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

“Hillary Rodham $oros tied to dirty, defunct Dem group”

Looks like Her Highness is getting her fingers dirty yet again. Go figure. From Hot Air:

This one’s not connected to Runaround Hsu, at least that we know of.

Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, documents show.

At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT) fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined $775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with consulting firms hired by it.

In addition, the group’s former president, longtime Clinton aide Harold Ickes, has been identified as a volunteer adviser to the Clinton campaign. In FEC filings, the campaign listed a debt to Mr. Ickes of more than $2,000 for travel-related costs.

ACT was the big union group that George Soros donated $10 million to toward defeating President Bush in 2004. Hillary cannot plausibly claim to not know that ACT was both connected to Soros and that it was the third most heavily fined election law violator in US history. And she hired much of its top tier to help run her campaign.

ACT is disbanding, but that really doesn’t matter since much of its leadership is now ensconced in the Clinton campaign. And I’m sure Soros will come up with some new cleverly acronymed group through which he can pour money next time around.  

Nothing to see here, move along…

September 27, 2007 Posted by | corruption, Hillary | 6 Comments

Terrorists roll out the welcome mat for Rosie

Less than two weeks from sending a shout out to Cindy Shehag, jihadist camelhumpers are now showing the love to the Round Mound of Atrocious Sound, Rosie O’Qaeda. From WND:

Muslim jihadist leaders interviewed for a new book were ecstatic about statements from television talk host Rosie O’Donnell about the war in Iraq and the global war on terror, agreeing with her outspoken views.

Some even invited her on a “fact finding mission” to the Middle East.

“I agree with what this O’Donnell says. …We welcome Rosie O’Donnell to stay among us and to get to know the truth from being here, like many American peace activists are doing,” said Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist organization.

On one episode of “The View,” O’Donnell urged Americans not to fear so-called terrorists, calling them mothers and fathers.

“Faith or fear, that’s your choice,” she said. “You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking.”

“Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers,” stated O’Donnell.

As were the innocent people that these monsters slaughtered six years ago, wench.

I wonder if they have a 7XL-sized burqa for her? Wait ’til they find out she’s a muncher! Good times, good times.

September 27, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, religion of peace | 7 Comments

Dan Rather’s lawsuit a forgery?

It must be, according to Charles Lane:

I have obtained new documentary evidence regarding Dan Rather’s relationship with his former bosses at CBS News.

Obviously, I cannot identify my source. But he told me during a collect call from Sofia, Bulgaria, that he has access to Rather’s “personal files” and that his typewriter was built after 1966. To authenticate the document, I showed it to some of my kids’ friends, and they said it was awesome.

Here, then, the letter — written by Dan Rather and dated Nov. 31, 2006:

“Dear CBS News:

“My new career at HDNet is keeping me busier than a bordello at Mardis Gras.

“But I did want to take a moment to thank you for your kindness and consideration during my 44 years as the finest broadcast journalist any network ever had.

“Let’s face it. At times I did or said things that some people, most of them partisan political operatives, considered unbecoming, ridiculous or even ‘firing offenses.’

“In 1987, I walked off the set of the evening news, leaving you to fill several minutes of dead air, because you delayed the news to finish coverage of the U.S. Open tennis tournament. That came back to haunt us the next year, when then-Vice President George H.W. Bush mocked me about it. But you stood by me.

“In 2001, I accidentally gave a speech at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Austin. Later, I realized that some powerful and extremely well-financed forces think that journalists shouldn’t help political parties raise money. For a minute there, the issue got hotter than a hamburger on a hickory fire. You guys put out a statement calling it an ‘honest oversight,’ and we rode it out together. Thanks.

“But what really made me gratefuller than a Pilgrim in November was the way CBS News handled my Sept. 8, 2004, broadcast of those fake documents — you know, the ones that said President Bush finagled his way into the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and then skipped a Guard physical, etc., etc.

“You guys stood by me, and the report, until it became impossible to deny that it was a whopper, and then you let me make a dignified exit from ‘CBS Evening News’ several months later.

“Until I left the network in June 2006, you kept paying me a $6 million salary, even though I wasn’t really doing much work.

“The nicest part, though — the part that shows you are more compassionate than Mother Teresa in a 12-story leper colony — is that after I apologized for the bogus report, you asked me to keep my mouth shut about it, even though I was itching to retract the apology.

“Thank you, CBS, thank you for saving me from myself.

“Courage, Dan.”

Yes, there is another document making the rounds that suggests that Dan Rather is actually bitter at his former employers. I am referring to the 32-page “lawsuit” in which Rather purportedly accuses various chieftains at CBS of “coercing” him into a false apology for the National Guard broadcast and then muzzling him and starving him of airtime to please the White House.

Clearly, this “lawsuit” is a forgery — and a pretty crude one at that.

No man in Rather’s position would admit that he could be made to apologize for a story he believed was true. A straight-shooting newsman like Dan Rather would have resigned rather than obey an order to lie to the public.

No sensible person would allege that CBS’s investigation of the National Guard story was both hopelessly biased because it was led by George H.W. Bush’s former attorney general and that the investigation “exonerated” Rather.

No sane individual would start a legal battle that could result in his being deposed under oath about his own conduct at the network over 44 rocky years.

Finally, no one in his right mind would keep insisting that those phony documents are real and that the Bush National Guard story is true. (Well, Ellis does, but then again, you DID say “in his right mind”, didn’t you? – Ed.)

If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Dan Rather, it is that he’s a perfectly reasonable guy. Otherwise, CBS News would never have put him in the anchor’s chair in the first place. And he sat there for 24 years.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Rather apologists.

September 27, 2007 Posted by | Dan Rather, humor | 2 Comments

“David Shuster’s dead soldier gotcha falls apart?”

Mr. Shyster…er, Shuster…please remove that omelette from your face! From Hot Air:

Subbing for MSNBC’s Tucker, the same reporter who confidently (and as it turned out, incorrectly) reported that Karl Rove would be indicted over the Plame case played gotcha with Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn over her not knowing the name of the last soldier from her district to have been killed in Iraq.

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

MARSHA BLACKBURN: The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq from my district? I do not know.

SHUSTER: OK, his name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the ninth, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?

BLACKBURN: You know, I do not know why I did not know the name (I do, but I won’t ruin the surprise here! – Ed.). We make contact with the families that are in our district, and when you have a major military post you are very sensitive to this and sensitive to working with those families and that is something that my staff and I do daily. Our district director is a gentleman who has served in the U.S. Army and currently serves in the National Guard, and we do everything that we possibly can do to assist those families. We are very appreciative of the sacrifice –

SHUSTER: Well, you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, yet you can say chapter and verse what goes on with the New York Times and

Shuster’s game was disgusting and, it’s turning out, wasn’t true to the facts. The soldier he named didn’t live in Blackburn’s district.

It now turns out that Army Private Jeremy Bohannon had not, contrary to Shuster’s claim, lived in Rep. Blackburn’s congressional district. As blogger Conservative Belle brought to NB’s attention, and as she has written about at her site, Private Bohannon lived in Bon Acqua, TN. Checking his nine-digit zip code reveals that he in fact lived in Tennessee District 8, represented by John Tanner, a Democrat.

I have now spoken with an aide in Rep. Blackburn’s office, who confirmed that Pvt. Bohannon had not lived in the congresswoman’s district.

Yes, Mr. Shuster, by all means, let’s talk about the public trust. And why no member of the public should trust you or the network that puts you on the air and doesn’t reprimand you when you get your facts wrong. 

Nope…no liberal media bias!

September 27, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias | 6 Comments

Dem guv of VA appoints jihadist to immigration panel

I guess the “party of diversity” likes to include the “death to infidels” perspective in his administration.  From LGF:

The Democratic governor of Virginia, Timothy M. Kaine, has appointed Dr. Esam Omeish to the Virginia Commission on Immigration: Valley delegate challenges Kaine appointee to immigration panel.

Esam Omeish is a name LGF readers may recognize; he’s the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s primary front group in the United States, the Muslim American Society.

A local delegate has asked Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to re-think his appointment of the head of the Virginia-based Muslim American Society to the Virginia Commission on Immigration.

Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, wrote to Kaine earlier today, saying he was concerned about the appointment of Dr. Esam S. Omeish, a Northern Virginia physician and the group’s president, to the panel. The commission was created earlier this year to study the impact of illegal immigration on the commonwealth.

The Muslim American Society has significant ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in Egypt, Gilbert said. “It is unfortunate that the Governor would choose the leader of an organization such as this to represent many the freedom-loving Muslim citizens of Virginia on this important commission,” Gilbert said.

“While the Muslim American Society claims to be the innocent face of peaceful Islam in America, their history and teachings tell a much different story. Unfortunately, it is a story about which all Americans have become much too familiar — that of the promotion of a global Islamic state. The questionable origin and teachings of this group should give the Governor some serious concerns about his recent appointment. Even though this organization has a savvy public relations machine, the public face that it projects may disguise some very troubling hidden intentions.”

Here’s Omeish at an August 2006 rally in Washington DC, wearing a kaffiyeh and delivering a virulent anti-Israel rant. This is the man the governor of Virginia chooses to advise him on immigration policy.

(Video player requires Flash Player.)

The Investigative Project has more information on the subversive Islamic supremacist group calling itself the Muslim American Society

Go ahead…question their sanity.

September 27, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, religion of peace | 1 Comment

Dan Rather: Bush hates me, I’ll depose him, yada-yada-yada…

The pitiful saga of a once-respected (by many, not by me) journalist continues to unfold before our very eyes, and it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy than Dan Rather. From San Franistan’s Examiner:

Former CBS “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather choked back tears on several occasions today when discussing his decision to file a lawsuit against CBS and he left many audience members with a sense that he may call President George W. Bush as a witness should the lawsuit proceed to trial (and Rather said he hoped it would).

When asked by Carol Joynt, host of the “Q&A Café” held at Nathans restaurant who worked with Rather at CBS in the 1970s, whether “he’d like to” call President Bush as a witness in the trial, Rather paused, then said “I’d like not to answer the question,” leaving both Joynt and audience members wondering whether the newsman has Bush in his sights.” Joynt later told Yeas & Nays, “From the look in his eye — and he gave me a definite Ratheresque look — I got the impression he will call the president as a witness. Possibly both of them: 41 and 43. He implied the suit is not against them, but what the suit is about stems directly from his antagonistic relationship with them.”

In the lawsuit, Rather claims he was unjustifiably squeezed out of CBS by network executives following a 2004 story about President Bush’s service record in the Texas Air National Guard. After evidence emerged that the story’s primary documents were possibly faked or forged, Rather stated on air that “if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”

I’ll come back to the prior paragraph in a second, but I think it’s fair to give you a beverage warning right now. Put down your drink, pronto! OK, you’ve been warned!

Joynt asked Rather if he believes the president hates him, and Rather responded by saying that “hate is a strong word.” Then, he began to well up. “You’ve never met anybody who had more respect for the presidency than I do,” said Rather, choking back tears. He stood by his 2004 story, saying “we got the truth, but we left ourselves vulnerable.”

Interesting: I would have not gone ahead with the story”, but “we got the truth”? Still sticking to the “fake but accurate” script, are we, Gunga Dan?

The fact is, Dan, you were fired from CBS for bringing disrepute to the network, and its Evening News has never fully recovered (hiring Couric darned sure didn’t help) since your brazen attempt to sway the results of the election of 2004 with a bogus, uncorroborated story. Despite your numerous claims to be “fiercely independent”, you have always been a leftist partisan hack, even going so far as to be the keynote speaker at a 2001 Texas Democrats fundraiser.

Our CLOWNS snoopers Word has it that Dan Rather’s legal team will call a still gainfully employed prizewinning journalist named Ima Shyster from the National Enquirer who ran stories of Elvis on a UFO that (wouldn’t you know it?) just so happened to be fakes (who knew?), yet ran the story anyway with the “OK, the photos are fake, but the story is real” defense. This has not yet been confirmed.

September 27, 2007 Posted by | Dan Rather, media bias, shameful | 12 Comments

Disbarred lawyer to teach…Legal Ethics!

File this under “shiite I couldn’t make up if I tried”!  From Stop the ACLU:

She faced up to 30 years for conspiring with a terrorist and got a slap on the wrist of 28 months in October of last year. So how is it that she is able to teach a class now? The judge said Stewart could remain free while she appeals, a process that could take more than a year. Is this still going on?

And of all things, she will teach a law school about ethics? What ethics?

A disbarred lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists will be teaching at an upcoming law school ethics conference.

Lynne Stewart, who was found guilty of conspiring with terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, will be speaking October 16 at Hofstra Law School’s “Legal Ethics: Lawyering on the Edge,” in Hempstead, New York.

The speaking engagement comes only a year after Stewart was sentenced to twenty-eight months in prison on charges of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists.

Prosecutors alleged that Stewart had passed on messages to Abdel Rahman’s radical Muslim followers, authorizing a resumption of terrorist operations against the Egyptian government.

As a result of the convictions, Stewart was automatically disbarred from practicing law.

Her client, Abdel Rahman, was convicted in 1996 of plots to bomb landmarks around New York City.

Stewart will be speaking at Hofstra Law School’s 2007 Legal Ethics Conference, “Lawyering at the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, Zealous Advocates.” The conference is scheduled for October 14 to 16, 2007 in the Sidney R. Siben and Walter Siben Moot Courtroom (room 308) of Hofstra Law School.

According to the University’s website, the conference will feature “dynamic speakers who will weigh in on controversial issues such as prosecutorial abuse, the challenges of representing prisoners at Guantanamo, and attacks on lawyers who represent unpopular clients and causes.”

You have got to be kidding me! Last I heard, she was granted medical stay because of her breast cancer. She’s well enough to teach a class…I think she’s well enough to serve her time….as little as it is. This woman is a traitor. She shouldn’t be given the time of day, much less a teaching job….of ETHICS for goodness sakes! These students are most likely future ACLU lawyers! 

Higher education at Hofstra…isn’t.

September 26, 2007 Posted by | ambulance chasers, shameful | 6 Comments

Another black-on-white crime

From Norfolk, VA:

In the video, the 13-year-old boy struggled to stay on his feet as several youths punched and pushed him from all sides. When he finally went down, the blows didn’t cease; he tried to protect his face and head with his hands. As he pleaded for them to stop, he was kicked in the face.

After the weekend beating in Ocean View, which lasted less than 40 seconds, the boy struggled to his feet, his face bloody.

The youth, Damin O’Rourke, who only recently moved to Norfolk’s West Ocean View from North Carolina, was left with bruises and scrapes. Police have identified several assailants – juveniles who they said could face misdemeanor assault charges.

Once again, the city is facing questions related to an assault involving several young assailants.

Damin is white; his assailants are black. Still, police said in a news release: “The assault does not appear to be racially motivated according to information gathered by investigators that we are unable to release.” The city’s Gang Squad was investigating, said Officer Chris Amos, police spokesman. …

Waiting for Jesse and Al to descend on Norfolk and protest the treatment that these “poor, misguided” black youths are getting for ganging up on Whitey (who, I’m sure, just had it coming to him, right?). Waiting…

September 26, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, shameful | 2 Comments

“Tennessee Democrats Object To Thompson Fundraising… Uh, Just Because”

Jim Geraghty delivers the spanking.

This has to be the lamest political attack in… well, a few days, at least:

Nashville, TN- Fred Thompson uses his Tennessee beginnings as if they were a Hollywood setting, but today Fred Thompson will use the Volunteer State as his personal ATM and an excuse to withdraw from the Florida Values Voters debate.

“Tennessee is too important and too pivotal in the 2008 presidential election to be used as a backdrop or a checking account,” said Tennessee Democratic Party spokesman Wade Munday.

“These times are too perilous to have an actor parading around the state, portraying a presidential candidate, and avoiding serious debate for serious times,” Munday continued. “Fred Thompson has yet to offer a substantive response to our military friends and families in Iraq, but he’s willing to raise money using their sacrifices as a political soundbite.

“Aside from the financial withdrawals, Fred has withdrawn from debate after debate on account of some rather unimpressive campaign appearances. Now he uses Tennessee as an excuse to withdraw from a debate on values, because he has yet to memorize those lines.”

How dare Fred Thompson… raise money for a presidential campaign! He should be like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards, and never hold any fundraisers at all! Why doesn’t he act like Hillary and rely on nice men like Norman Hsu to give him money!


September 25, 2007 Posted by | Fred Thompson, hypocrisy | 6 Comments

San Franistan to Marines: Semper Die!

Not that this should come as a surprise. From modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, San Fran-sicko (via Michelle Malkin):

KGO reports that San Francisco is dissing the military again (hat tip – readers Thom and Tim):

New York said “yes,” but we said “no.” Why were the U.S. Marines denied permission to film a recruiting commercial on the streets of San Francisco? San Francisco is, once again, the center of a controversy over how city leaders treat the U.S. military. This time, it involves an elite group of Marines who wanted to film a recruitment commercial in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11.

The tension has been building in the two weeks since the city turned away members of the Silent Drill Platoon, and it boiled over Monday afternoon at a meeting of the San Francisco Film Commission. The U.S. Marine Silent Drill Platoon performed Monday morning in New York’s Times Square. They filmed part of a recruitment commercial through the start of the morning rush hour — something they could not do in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11. “It’s insulting, it’s demeaning. This woman is going to insult these young heroes by just arbitrarily saying, ‘no, you’re not going to film any Marines on California Street,” said Captain Greg Corrales of the SFPD Traffic Bureau.

Captain Greg Corrales commands the police traffic bureau that works with crews shooting commercials, TV shows and movies in the city. He’s also a Marine veteran and his son is serving his third tour of duty in Iraq. He says Film Commission Executive Director Stefanie Coyote would only allow the Marine’s production crew to film on California Street if there were no Marines in the picture. They wound up filming the empty street and will have to superimpose the Marines later.

“Ms. Coyote’s politics blinded her to her duty as the director of the Film Commission and as a responsible citizen,” said Captain Corrales.

San Fran officials are claiming that “traffic concerns” are to blame, not their politics.

Bull, say the Marine veterans, and rightly so:

Captain Corrales and several other Marine veterans came to the Film Commission Monday afternoon. They see this as just the latest insult along with the city blocking the USS Iowa from docking here, banning the junior ROTC from high schools, and trying to ban the yearly Blue Angels air show. (Not to mention that idiot Sandoval who said the U.S. doesn’t need a military. – Ed.)

“This — a slap in the face of every veteran and every parent of men and women who are doing their duty — is shameful,” said Captain Corrales.

The Marines we spoke with also make the point that the city allows street demonstrations, anti-war protests and other events which snarl traffic, such as Critical Mass. They still don’t understand why the Marines got turned away.

If San Fransicko got invaded, I’d recommend that they ask the UN for help, since they so detest our military to protect their sorry, sick, perverted, warped, sodomizing ungrateful posteriors.

September 25, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, San Francisco | 14 Comments

“House bill would shield workers in bankruptcies”

From al-Reuters:

Workers’ and retirees’ wages and pension benefits would be protected in corporate bankruptcies under a bill to be introduced on Tuesday by Democratic U.S. lawmakers with support from labor unions.

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said in a statement he will offer the bill to “make it more difficult for the companies to use bankruptcy as a way to gut workers’ wages and benefits.”

Conyers said he will be joined at a news conference on the bill on Tuesday by Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO labor coalition, and labor leaders for airline pilots, steelworkers, auto workers, flight attendants and machinists.

“Workers have been bearing more than their share of the pain when their companies file for bankruptcy,” Trumka said.

“This legislation restores balance to the bankruptcy process, moving workers up in the line of who gets what they’re owed, ensuring outrageous CEO packages don’t trump things like pensions and living wages, and slamming shut corporations’ back door route to gutting workers’ rights,” he said.

An aide to Conyers said the bill would seek to amend the U.S. bankruptcy law and declined to provide further details ahead of the news conference.

“Workers have been bearing more than their share of the pain when their companies file for bankruptcy”?? Are you freakin’ kidding me? More often than not, union workers are largely responsible for their companies filing for bankruptcy!

They strongarm companies into paying inflated wages, inflated pensions for people who no longer contribute to the company, and inflated health care costs. All of these things cause the company to raise the price of its goods and services, and when non-union companies don’t have the overhead that union companies have, non-union companies can offer a superior product or service at a cost lower than that of the union companies. As a result of being unable to compete, many union companies file for bankruptcy.

So after the union thugs bankrupt their employers, they have the temerity to demand that they still get to keep that which contributed to their employer’s financial demise? Un-freakin’-believable!

September 25, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, unions | 4 Comments

Ahmanutjob a Troofer

Congrats, tinfoil nutters. You’ve got a glowing endorsement. From AP:

NEW YORK – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioned the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks and defended the right to cast doubt on the Holocaust in a tense appearance Monday at Columbia University, whose president accused the hard-line leader of behaving like “a petty and cruel dictator.”

He reiterated his desire to visit ground zero to express sympathy with the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, but then appeared to question whether al-Qaida was responsible.

“Why did this happen? What caused it? What conditions led to it?” he said. “Who truly was involved? Who was really involved and put it all together?”

Ahmanutjob and Troofers, birds of a feather.

September 24, 2007 Posted by | Ahmanutjob, moonbats | 4 Comments

Washington comPost: Rudy changed his mind on terrorism

File this under “Well, no shiite, Sherlock!” From the comPost:

As Rudolph W. Giuliani campaigns for president, he rarely misses a chance to warn about the threat from terrorists. “They hate you,” he told a woman at an Atlanta college. They “want to kill us,” he told guests at a Virginia luncheon.

The former New York City mayor exhorts America to fight back in what he calls the “terrorists’ war on us” and accuses Democrats of reverting to their “denial” in the 1990s, when, he said, President Bill Clinton erred by treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, not a war.

Democrats, he said in July, have “the same bad judgment they had in the 1990s. They don’t see the threat. They don’t accept the threat.”

It is a powerful message coming from the man who won global acclaim for his calm and resolve after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But it is undercut by Giuliani’s record as mayor and by his public statements about terrorism since the 1990s, which document an evolution in thinking that began with a mind-set similar to the one he criticizes today.

What a huge bombshell! What a shocker! Rudy thought about terrorism differently after 9/11/2001 than he did before that date! I mean, excluding the left, who doesn’t look at terrorism differently after we had 3,000 of our innocent countrymen slaughtered on our own soil?

Dumb#sses. Nope, no liberal media bias!

September 24, 2007 Posted by | media bias, religion of peace | 2 Comments

Sharpton and his ilk think black teens should be able to beat white teens to bloody pulps

There’s just no other way to describe the lunacy demonstrated by that sorry #ss race-hustling poverty pimp Al Sharpton, his partner in crime Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson, and their ignorant minions who now think that blacks should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do to whites if said blacks are “disrespected”. From Seattlestan’s fishwrap:

JENA, La. — Thousands of chanting demonstrators filled the streets of this little Louisiana town Thursday in support of six black teenagers initially charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white classmate.

The crowd broke into chants of “Free the Jena Six” as the Rev. Al Sharpton arrived at the local courthouse with family members of the jailed teens.

Sharpton told the Associated Press that he and Reps. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, and William Jefferson, D-La., will press the House Judiciary Committee next week to summon the district attorney to explain his actions before Congress.

This could be the beginning of a 21st century’s civil rights movement challenge disparities in the justice system, he said, and he said he planned a November march in Washington.

“What we need is federal intervention to protect people from Southern injustice,” Sharpton told the AP. “Our fathers in the 1960’s had to penetrate the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, we have to do the same thing.”

The six black teens were charged a few months after three white teens were accused of hanging nooses in a tree on their high school grounds. The white teens were suspended from school but weren’t prosecuted. Five of the black teens were initially charged with attempted murder. That charge was reduced to battery for all but one, who has yet to be arraigned; the sixth was charged as a juvenile.

The beating victim, Justin Barker, was knocked unconscious, his face badly swollen and bloodied, though he was able to attend a school function later that night.

District Attorney Reed Walters stressed on Wednesday that race had nothing to do with the charges in Jena.

Walters said he didn’t charge the white students accused of hanging the nooses because he could find no Louisiana law under which they could be charged. In the beating case, he said, four of the defendants were of adult age under Louisiana law and the only juvenile charged as an adult, Mychal Bell, had a prior criminal record.

“It is not and never has been about race,” Walters said. “It is about finding justice for an innocent victim and holding people accountable for their actions.”

“Disparities in the justice system”? Gimme a friggin’ break! The white teens weren’t prosecuted because as far as I know, doing stupid bigoted things like hanging a noose in a tree isn’t a crime. However, the last time I checked, violently assaulting someone is indeed a crime. I don’t have a problem with the idiot white snots being suspended, but unless they commited a crime, I don’t see what you can prosecute them for. The last time I checked, being a bigoted idiot wasn’t illegal, because if it were, then Jackson, Sharpton, et al would be incarcerated for eternity.

Seriously, though, it seems like whenever a black person commits a violent crime, their “bruthas and sistas” swarm to their defenses, regardless of whatever the facts may bear out. Has Sharpton or his minions condemned the violence that the black teens inflicted on the white teens? I haven’t seen anything to indicate this.

So while these race-baiting warlords are trying to maintain their relevance by ginning up outrage where none ought be, race relations could be set back several years with such public displays of idiocy. Then again, something tells me that this is exactly what the beneficiaries of racism (real or imagined) like Sharpton and Jackson and their ilk want to happen.

September 24, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, Jena | 11 Comments

Taxachussets’ public schools: English required, just not at the top

Yet another heart-warming public education story, from Ted Kennedrunk’s stomping grounds (via CNN):

LAWRENCE, Massachusetts (AP) — This city’s superintendent of schools, who recently put two dozen teachers on unpaid leave for failing a basic English proficiency test, has himself flunked a required literacy test three times.

Wilfredo T. Laboy called his failing scores “frustrating” and “emotional.” He blamed his performance on a lack of preparation and concentration, as well as the fact that Spanish is his first language.

“It bothers me because I’m trying to understand the congruence of what I do here every day and this stupid test,” Laboy told The Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence in a story published Sunday.

“What brought me down was the rules of grammar and punctuation,” Laboy said. “English being a second language for me, I didn’t do well in writing. If you’re not an English teacher, you don’t look at the rules on a regular basis.”

Since 1998, all Massachusetts educators — from teachers to superintendents — have had to pass the Communications and Literacy Skills Test, which measures basic reading and writing skills, including vocabulary, punctuation, grammar, spelling and capitalization.

Laboy, who receives a 3 percent pay hike this month that will raise his salary to $156,560, recently put 24 teachers on unpaid administrative leave because they failed a basic English test.

If you’re a teacher in Lawrence and “no hablo ingles”, you get suspended without pay. If you’re the superintendent who runs that school system and you “no hablo ingles”, you get a pay raise and a six-figure salary. Nicely done, educrats.

September 24, 2007 Posted by | public education | 3 Comments

Kos kook writer: Ahmanutjob rocks, if you can just get past that maniac thing

From Hot Air:

He’s a revolutionary, he’s from a “minority” culture, and he loathes George Bush. What’s not to love? A communique from the new center of the Democratic Party:

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of [sic] gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.

Follow LGF’s link to the dKos post and read through the comments, where the main counterargument is that it’s okay to hate him because, in fact, he’s a lot like Bush. The silver lining in this week’s Mahdi Takes Manhattan feature is that it gives the filthy left plenty of opportunities to indulge the cretinous knee-jerk “enlightened” contrarian within by apologizing for this Holocaust-denying, terror-supporting douchebag. A few of the dumber ones have already piped up in support of his “good-faith gesture” at Ground Zero; we’ll see what other cockle-warming gestures he has planned tomorrow to get a swoon out of the, ahem, reality-based community. Keep it up, boys. There’s attack ads in them thar hills. 

As usual, go ahead and feel free to question their patriotism (along with their sanity).

September 24, 2007 Posted by | Ahmanutjob, moonbats | 2 Comments

You have to believe in SOME god, and if not, you must be stomped out of America!

This may be the first time I respond to a letter to the editor on my blog instead of on the site where the letter appears. But since I find the content so patently offensive, I need to vent here. Here’s the wingnut’s editorial, unaltered by me or anyone else:

It’s time to stomp out atheists in America. The majority of Americans would love to see atheists kicked out of America. If you don’t believe in God, then get out of this country.

The United States is based on having freedom of religion, speech, etc., which means you can believe in God any way you want (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.), but you must believe.

I don’t recall freedom of religion meaning no religion. Our currency even says, ”In God We Trust.” So, to all the atheists in America: Get off of our country.

People like Gail Pepin (The Chronicle, Oct. 11) have caused the ruin of this great nation by taking prayer out of our schools and being able to practice what can only be called evil. I don’t care if she has never committed a crime, she is the reason crime is rampant.

To The Chronicle, please do not give atheists a voice. You do more harm than good.

Gloria ”Wendy” Ray, Aiken, S.C.

So many points to make, so little time. So let’s get to it. To Ms. Ray:

1. You’re an idiot. I didn’t go out on a limb with that one, now did I?

2. If you’d be so kind as to point out which survey you’ve seen that shows the majority of Americans want atheists deported, I’d greatly appreciate it.

3. “The United States is based on having freedom of religion, speech, etc., which means you can believe in God any way you want (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc.)” is correct. However, “…but you must believe” is grossly incorrect. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that Americans must believe in some god or another! Such a reqirement may exist in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it does not exist in America.

4. “I don’t recall freedom of religion meaning no religion.” Well, it does. You are free to abstain from worshiping in any religion in this country.

5. “So, to all the atheists in America: Get off of our country.” I didn’t realize that atheists were ON our country?

Seriously, you have to believe in SOME god or another? Can you be a Muslim? Because according to the Christian religion, Muslims are going to Hell, so what difference does it make if someone goes to Hell for being Muslim as opposed to being an atheist? Think it through, lady!

I have said this before, and I will say it again: I believe in God as described in the Holy Bible, and I believe every word of the Bible. As such, I believe that when we die, if we have not accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, we will burn in Hell for eternity (do not debate me on this, for I am not going to change my mind).

Having said that, we live in a country where we are free to damn our souls to Hell if we so choose. Quite frankly, I like it that way. I do not want a theocracy here. The way I see it, if atheists want to live their lives like there are no consequences to their beliefs or actions, then how about I let God worry about that? I’ve got my own fish to fry, plus I’ve got my own messes to clean up, so if it’s all the same to you folks, whatsay I let the Almighty take care of that “salvation and judgment” thing of other people?

September 24, 2007 Posted by | wingnuts | 4 Comments

Obama wants massive tax hike to pay for Social Security

The LA Times’ “Magic Negro” wants to tax those mean ol’ nasty rich folks to fund everyone else’s retirement. From ABC News:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is considering a major tax hike on the rich to shore up the nation’s Social Security system.

“If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000,” Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, “we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.”

Right, because businesses would just absorb the extra taxes (i.e. revenue shortfalls) without making any changes, right? Don’t you just love these functional economic illiterates?

Anywho, here’s a typical example of economic ignorance displayed by the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy):

Obama’s idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday’s Quad City Times as being “one possible option” and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.

OK, for those of you who actually believe your employer pays half of your Social Security taxes, here’s an economics lesson for you, free of charge (and I know how you libs like “free” stuff, so “You’re welcome” in advance):

Your employer does not pay for any smidgeon of your Social Security taxes…you do. Your employer figures out how much it will cost him/her to hire you (salary, benefits, training, AND Social Security taxes), and then acts accordingly. For example, let’s say you make $50,000 per year (gross salary). It costs your employer much more than your $50,000 salary, and your salary and future raises will be based accordingly. All your employer does is collect the taxes from you in the form of smaller-than-it-otherwise-would-be salary and raises. Even if you get a nice salary and/or a big fat raise, know that it would be even fatter if your boss didn’t have to collect taxes from you. In other words, you would be making at least 6.2% more if not for the Ponzi scheme tax (er, Social Security tax).

In other words, the “employer’s share” of the tax doesn’t come from your mean ol’ nasty corporate bosses’ coffers. It comes from your own pay check. The sooner you people get it through your head that businesses do not pay taxes but merely collect them, the better off you’ll be.

Old Soldier has a good post on this, too, including mentioning that the 51% of taxes that the top 5% of wage-earners pay obviously isn’t enough for the left. These fools cannot be trusted to manage the purse strings of our country!

September 24, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, Obama, taxes | 5 Comments

“New York Times Says It Violated Policies Over MoveOn Ad”

Sorry to disappoint you moonbats, but I’m back. Suffer.

Check this out from the Washington comPost, regarding the Old Gray Hag:

After two weeks of denials, the New York Times acknowledged that it should not have given a discount to for a full-page advertisement assailing Gen. David H. Petraeus.

The liberal advocacy group should have paid $142,000 for the ad calling the U.S. commander in Iraq “General Betray Us,” not $65,000, the paper’s public editor wrote yesterday.

Clark Hoyt said in his column that MoveOn was not entitled to the cheaper “standby” rate for advertising that can run any time over the following week because the Times did promise that the ad would run Sept. 10, the day Petraeus began his congressional testimony. “We made a mistake,” Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was quoted as saying.

MoveOn, saying it had no reason to believe it was paying “anything other than the normal and usual charge,” said yesterday that it would send the Times $77,000 to make up the difference.

The Times also violated its own advertising policy, which bars “attacks of a personal nature,” Hoyt reported. He wrote that the episode “gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the ‘liberal media.’ “

Yeah, what in the world would give us in the “cottage industry” reason to think that the Hag has a liberal tilt?
I have to disagree with the NYT on this one, though. They said that giving the discount violated their own policies. Considering that their policy is to firmly plant their puckering lips on the left’s posterior, I don’t see where that policy was violated here.

September 24, 2007 Posted by | media bias, moonbats | 2 Comments

Hiatus until Monday

I’ve been at the E.R. since 12:30 a.m., and I’ve had about two hours of sleep. I’ll return to blogging on Monday. Don’t worry, I’m fine. Everyone, enjoy your weekend!

September 20, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | 6 Comments

UPDATED: Cops taser UF moonbat


While I get a perverse sense of pleasure at a Gator student getting lit up like a Christmas tree, I’ll see if I can gin up some outrage at his treatment. OK, here goes: This is an outrage! There. Don’t say I never give you anything. Anywho, here are the details:

Police used a Taser on and arrested a University of Florida student Monday when he attempted to speak at a forum with U.S. Sen. John Kerry during a question and answer session, university officials said.

Andrew Meyer, 21, asked Kerry why he did not contest the 2004 presidential election (um, ‘cuz he lost? – Ed.), which he lost to President Bush, and why there had been no moves to impeach Bush (um, ‘cuz Kerry’s in the Senate and impeachment procedings begin in the House? Dude, after you get both of your brain cells unfried from being Tased, you really should get back to your American history class. – Ed.).

“He apparently asked several questions — he went on for quite awhile — then he was asked to stop,” university spokesman Steve Orlando said. “He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off then he became upset.”

While as many as four police officers tried to remove Meyer from the forum, he yelled for help and asked, “What did I do?” Minutes after Meyer started speaking, he was stunned.

Meyer was charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records. No bond had been set. Meyer was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday morning, a jail official said.

Orlando said university police would conduct an internal investigation on the incident.

“The police department does have a standard procedure for when they use force, including when they use a Taser,” Orlando said. “That is what the internal investigation would address — whether the proper procedures were followed, whether the officers acted appropriately.”

While it should be a law that we can zap moonbats like this whenever we damn well please, in all seriousness, I do happen to be leaning towards the “cops were a little heavy-handed here” side of things. However, I know how the MSM tends to leave out details so as to portray cops in the most unflattering light possible, so I’ll await the results of the investigation before fully coming to a conclusion as to whether the police overreacted or not.

Until then…fry, you Gainesville moonbat, fry! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK, I’m horrible…so sue me! 😀

UPDATE (9/18/2007 – 9:55 a.m. EST): There’s an eyewitness account to the event, for what it’s worth. If true, dude was resisting arrest and was told to stop resisting or he would get tased. He refused. Again, this is one person’s account, so take it or leave it.

UPDATE (9/19/2007 – 7:35 a.m. EST): This is getting better all the time! Dude’s not only a moonbat, but he’s a Troofer moonbat! Way to represent, dipsh#t!

UPDATE (9/19/2007 – 8:02 a.m. EST): I should have known this was coming. Apparently, a couple of the mouthbreathing knuckledragging moonbats from MSNBC is blaming Bush and Rove for the zapping of the UF publicity whore. Bush and Rove, you sadistic b#stards!

September 19, 2007 Posted by | Kerry, moonbats | 20 Comments

Durbin the Turban’s revived amnesty plan

What’s he got to worry about?  Illinois is bluer than the ice water in Shrillary’s veins.  From Slate:

Demi-Semi-Amnesty: Democratic Sen. Durbin’s revived “DREAM Act” is typically billed as a way to address “the tragedy of young people”–students who were brought into the country when they were very young, and now want to attend college. I was going to criticize it because it inevitably offers an incentive to future illegal immigration–i.e. “sneak across the border and your already-born children can go to U.S. colleges, pay in-state tuition, and become citizens!” It seemed precisely the sort of compassionate measure that should become possible after the borders had been shown to be secure for several years (as opposed to after a few quick showy raids and deportations).

But it’s actually not that bad. It’s much, much worse! Kris Kobach persuasively argues that, thanks to loose drafting, it’s potentially a huge de facto legalization program of the sort many observers thought had been defeated. For example [emphasis added]:

There is no upper age limit. Any illegal alien can walk into a U.S. Customs and Immigration Ser­vices office and declare that he is eligible. For example, a 45 year old can claim that he illegally entered the United States 30 years ago at the age of 15. There is no requirement that the alien prove that he entered the United States at the claimed time by providing particular documents. The DREAM Act’s Section 4(a) merely requires him to “demonstrate” that he is eligible—which in practice could mean simply making a sworn statement to that effect.

There’s more–e.g., once you file an “application,” you can’t be deported. …See also Noam Askew. … Action Plan: Ask John McCain about the “DREAM Act” on his new “Forget Immigration!” Tour.

No word on whether Lindsey Grahamnesty or Lettuce McCain will sign on to this, but I’m thinking they would.

September 19, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration | 2 Comments

Hillary: It depends on the meaning of the word “mandatory”

Her Highness is trying to outdo her hubby in the “let’s make Webster turn over in his grave” department. From AP:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

“At this point, we don’t have anything punitive that we have proposed,” the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We’re providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans.”

If there are no punitive measures for non-compliance, then the plan cannot be “mandatory”, but is instead voluntary. I mean, if you disobey mandatory laws in this country, you face punitive measures (fines, jail time, etc.). That’s kinda how our laws work. You’d think a law school graduate like her would know that.

Therefore, she either (a) doesn’t know the difference between “mandatory” and “voluntary”; or (b) is lying through her teeth because she knows how Marxist and Orwellian her Big Brother her plan sounds and doesn’t want the Great Unwashed to be alarmed (and rightfully so). So which is it: she’s stupid or she’s a liar? You be the judge.

Oh, well, look on the bright side, Hilldawg: you’ve got that coveted wifekiller endorsement.

“I’d like to give a shout out to my main man Marx. Who loves ya, Karl?”

September 19, 2007 Posted by | big government, Hillary, socialism | 4 Comments