UPDATE I-Yeah, I've been watching this train-wreck on C-Span. Interesting guests, though. Ozzie. Sam Waterson. The O'Jays. The Myth Busters guys. A few other people. Who else has thus far appeared on this "Rally For Sanity"?
How about this for a get? The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, and then Yusef Islam-and now, apparently, just Yusef-the singer songwriter who created such hits as Wild World, Moonshadow, and Peace Train. Oh, as well as the following "hit"-
“Salman Rushdie or indeed any writer who abuses the prophet, or indeed any prophet, under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death. It’s got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again.”
–Cat Stevens
Yep, at the "Rally For Sanity". Well, after all, the show is intended to be part comedy. Kind of ironic though that this, the funniest thing I've seen here yet, hilarious though it was, was unintentionally so.
End of Update I, fibnal update(s) at the end-
I have to agree with this article about Jon Stewart and his so-called "Rally For Sanity". It's nothing but a self-serving vehicle on a road paved with Stewarts hopes that he will build a legacy to his own damned ego. If he can legitimately claim that he has swayed this election (and you know that's what he's aiming for), then he can pat himself on the back and say he made a contribution towards making America a better place. Damn those evil Republicans for being so nasty and negative to begin with, and damn those stupid Democrats for taking the bait and playing by their rules. Stewart is going to show them how it should be done. The Democrats, and Obama, can thank him on the morning of November 5th.
You can't manufacture much more hubris than that, which is why I think Stewart is heading for a big fall. Sure, the only thing that will suffer is his ego, but with somebody like him that can be a bitter pill to swallow.
The independents and moderates aren't going to buy it, and the people that will be laughing the most and the loudest, and with the most genuine mirth, will be the conservatives. Granted, they will be laughing at Stewart as much as with him. Liberals, who are for the most part humorless in their lack of introspection, can only pretend to be self-effacing. But give them this, they at least know when to laugh the loudest-on cue.
So who is going to be at this mess? It's pretty telling that Arianna Huffing is going to be busing crowds to the event in Washington, which will also feature Sheryl Crow as a warm up act. For God's sake, whatever you do, bring your own toilet paper.
There can't be much doubt as to which political party this thing is intended to help. So isn't it obvious what type of people the bulk of the audience will consist of?
That's right. The "Rally For Sanity" is going to be attended primarily by the craziest motherfuckers you could ever imagine gathered in one place at any one time.
UPDATE II-Oh my God, I hoped they were kidding when they said Sheryl Crow would be there, but there she was for real, singing about peace and love, and what do I see in the crowd while she's singing? Some guy holding up a sign that said "Everybody Poops".
Gods, I swear, if you can see your way clear to make me a world-famous rock star, I'll never sing a pretentious song about peace.
UPDATE-Well, now we're at the meat and potatoes. During the "debate" between Stewart and Colbert (who is determined to restore not sanity, but fear), Kareem Abdul Jabar was introduced on stage to convince Colbert that not all Muslims are bad people. A pretentiously cornball road to Damascus moment on the part of Colbert ensues, after which he expresses a fear of robots. Cue entrance of R2D2.
Later, a montage is presented by Colbert, which demonstrates the hatred and negativity that is being promulgated by both the left and the right. It's at least nice to see that Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Ed Schultz are receiving the same degree of criticism as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.
But, after Colbert (and his paper mache' puppet) is "killed" by a character in a Peter Pan costume (I don't know his name but I recognize him from the NBC sitcom Community) Stewart makes his overall point.
Americans are not like the people who deign to speak for them. They tend to work together and cooperate, despite party or religious labels, etc. The inference was, I guess, that politicians and pundits should do the same, for the good of the country.
Which begs the question-since Americans do already get along so famously, what difference does it make?
The difference of course is that, as long as politicians and pundits engage in such negativity, nothing will get done over and above the American people being at odds with each other.
What Stewart doesn't seem to get is, a lot of things that would get done if politicians did "work together and crossed party lines to get things done for the American people", are in a great many cases things that not only shouldn't get done-they shouldn't even be on the table.
Stewart maybe means well, from a liberal perspective. But what he doesn't get is, he is asking for parties to merge despite their differences, and for people to follow them, blindly and sheepishly, for the good of peace, love and progress. And no doubt for the children.
Even more importantly, the main thing he doesn't get is-our politicians fight, kick, scratch, and claw each others eyes and genitals on our behalf-so we American citizens will, hopefully, not have to.
Friday, October 29, 2010
A Terrorist "Plot" (Ahem) Revealed
So, what does the government of Yemen think of reports that explosive devices sent to the US originated from Yemen? Oh, they are astonished!
In a statement distributed to journalists and appearing on the official website late Thursday, the government said there were no UPS cargo planes that had taken off from Yemen or any indirect or direct flights to British or American airports.
Kind of hard to see then how any explosive devices could have originated from Yemen, right? I mean, seeing as how there were no flights, directly or indirectly, from Yemen to any British or American airports, how is it possible that somebody in Yemen could send explosives from Yemen on a cargo plane bound for the Presidents hometown of Chicago? Sent specifically to a synagogue attended by Jews, many of whom are not happy with the President and his Israeli policies, in addition possibly to other policies that pretty much sixty percent of the country is unhappy about? Right before an election which Republicans seem poised to win? If this did happen, how could the Yemenis not know about it-but the Saudis did?
Obama though is on the case, insisting in a press conference that it was a credible threat-but he and his administration is on the case.
Nice to know we don't REALLY have anything to worry about. (snort, snort).
In a statement distributed to journalists and appearing on the official website late Thursday, the government said there were no UPS cargo planes that had taken off from Yemen or any indirect or direct flights to British or American airports.
Kind of hard to see then how any explosive devices could have originated from Yemen, right? I mean, seeing as how there were no flights, directly or indirectly, from Yemen to any British or American airports, how is it possible that somebody in Yemen could send explosives from Yemen on a cargo plane bound for the Presidents hometown of Chicago? Sent specifically to a synagogue attended by Jews, many of whom are not happy with the President and his Israeli policies, in addition possibly to other policies that pretty much sixty percent of the country is unhappy about? Right before an election which Republicans seem poised to win? If this did happen, how could the Yemenis not know about it-but the Saudis did?
Obama though is on the case, insisting in a press conference that it was a credible threat-but he and his administration is on the case.
Nice to know we don't REALLY have anything to worry about. (snort, snort).
Politics Makes Sometimes Sickening Bedfellows
Lisa Murkowski is determined to retain her seat as the US Senator from Alaska for some reason, and it seems like there is nothing she won't say and do to derail the candidacy of Tea Party conservative Republican Joe Miller. She stated flatly during a recent debate that Miller was "unfit" to hold public office. Joe Miller for his part is on defense when maybe he should be on offense.
Enter Conservatives4Palin, who have jumped to Miller's defense in an attempt to prevent Murkowski from derailing Millers candidacy by way of her write-in campaign. Murkowski has pulled dead even with Miller in the last poll taken, while Democrat Scott Adams has almost faded into oblivion.
They have done this by encouraging conservatives everywhere to register as write-in candidates for the office of the Alaska Senate.
As of the last count, there are now fifty-six candidates for the office on the write-in ballot. The hope is there will be a lot more than that by Tuesday, and that this will discourage much of Murkowski's softer support, who won't be so inclined to go through a lengthy list of "candidates" in order to find Murkowski's name.
Unfortunately, and I might be a bit of a downer here, but I think there is something the Palin folks haven't considered. And that is, the Democrats, who have probably come to the unpleasant conclusion that their candidate doesn't have much of a chance anyway. As such, as much as they might dislike the Murkowski's, there might well be enough of them who hate Miller's brand of conservative politics even more to make a difference. And there is nothing about them that can be considered soft when it comes to their desire to derail anything even resembling a candidate with a Tea-Party platform.
On the other hand, while their support for Murkowski might well be temporary, there are others who are very much in her corner, and who are probably the ones who encouraged her write-in campaign to begin with.
I am referring to that group of Alaska politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists known as The Alaska Mafia.
There is nothing about them which lends them to the ideals of fiscal conservatism (other than tax breaks and regulatory relief). As the article states, they are the ultimate purveyors and beneficiaries of federal pork, and it is so obvious, the article describes Alaska as a socialist haven controlled by the state Republican Party. That might be somewhat of an exaggeration, but probably not as much as it might seem. In fact, this was the exact kind of culture that Sarah Palin fought against during her abbreviated tenure as governor of the state, which is why she was so loved and lauded by conservatives, while being universally reviled and detested by the party hacks that typify the GOP power structure every bit as much as by Democrats and leftist environmentalists.
When you think of that old saying "politics makes strange bedfellows" there is no situation in recent memory that comes close to illustrating that truth than the write-in campaign of Lisa Murkowski.
Its easy to see that. Miller has been the target of slurs and dirty campaign tactics. One so-called "reporter" even went so far as to accuse the Miller campaign workers of assaulting him during a recent Miller appearance, when come to find out, the reporter himself actually instigated the incident by shoving a Miller campaign volunteer.
Murkowski has not been the victim of any such similar attempts, as Democrats suddenly seem to treat her with kid gloves. After all, they see Miller as the real threat here. And its easy to see why. In a state like Alaska, the Murkowski dynasty, though strong, is still a lightning rod for attacks both from within the party and outside of it. They can be brought down easily enough, over time, perhaps. Just maybe. Joe Miller might not be so easy to deal with.
Enter Conservatives4Palin, who have jumped to Miller's defense in an attempt to prevent Murkowski from derailing Millers candidacy by way of her write-in campaign. Murkowski has pulled dead even with Miller in the last poll taken, while Democrat Scott Adams has almost faded into oblivion.
They have done this by encouraging conservatives everywhere to register as write-in candidates for the office of the Alaska Senate.
As of the last count, there are now fifty-six candidates for the office on the write-in ballot. The hope is there will be a lot more than that by Tuesday, and that this will discourage much of Murkowski's softer support, who won't be so inclined to go through a lengthy list of "candidates" in order to find Murkowski's name.
Unfortunately, and I might be a bit of a downer here, but I think there is something the Palin folks haven't considered. And that is, the Democrats, who have probably come to the unpleasant conclusion that their candidate doesn't have much of a chance anyway. As such, as much as they might dislike the Murkowski's, there might well be enough of them who hate Miller's brand of conservative politics even more to make a difference. And there is nothing about them that can be considered soft when it comes to their desire to derail anything even resembling a candidate with a Tea-Party platform.
On the other hand, while their support for Murkowski might well be temporary, there are others who are very much in her corner, and who are probably the ones who encouraged her write-in campaign to begin with.
I am referring to that group of Alaska politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists known as The Alaska Mafia.
There is nothing about them which lends them to the ideals of fiscal conservatism (other than tax breaks and regulatory relief). As the article states, they are the ultimate purveyors and beneficiaries of federal pork, and it is so obvious, the article describes Alaska as a socialist haven controlled by the state Republican Party. That might be somewhat of an exaggeration, but probably not as much as it might seem. In fact, this was the exact kind of culture that Sarah Palin fought against during her abbreviated tenure as governor of the state, which is why she was so loved and lauded by conservatives, while being universally reviled and detested by the party hacks that typify the GOP power structure every bit as much as by Democrats and leftist environmentalists.
When you think of that old saying "politics makes strange bedfellows" there is no situation in recent memory that comes close to illustrating that truth than the write-in campaign of Lisa Murkowski.
Its easy to see that. Miller has been the target of slurs and dirty campaign tactics. One so-called "reporter" even went so far as to accuse the Miller campaign workers of assaulting him during a recent Miller appearance, when come to find out, the reporter himself actually instigated the incident by shoving a Miller campaign volunteer.
Murkowski has not been the victim of any such similar attempts, as Democrats suddenly seem to treat her with kid gloves. After all, they see Miller as the real threat here. And its easy to see why. In a state like Alaska, the Murkowski dynasty, though strong, is still a lightning rod for attacks both from within the party and outside of it. They can be brought down easily enough, over time, perhaps. Just maybe. Joe Miller might not be so easy to deal with.
PUMA-Why They Just Won't Go Away
In An Open Letter To Rush Limbaugh, a former 2008 Hillary Clinton supporter goes into stunning detail as to how she, and presumably many, many more just like her, will not rest until Obama, and indeed the entire Democratic Party apparatus, is brought down to a crushing defeat, destroyed, annihilated.
And the coolest part about it. They are going to do it from within. Yep, they are still registered Democrats, and they still attend meetings, and boy, do they ever have all the dirt they need.
They're not just going after Obama. They are going after everybody who ever helped him, in the Congress, in the statehouses and legislatures, in the media. They are even going after Rahm Emmanuel and his run for the Chicago Mayor's office.
Let me make it clear. They are made as hell, at not only the way Hillary was treated, but at the way all of them, Hillary's supporters, were treated.
They are out for blood, vengeance, justice, and the death of the Democratic Party.
I think I'm in love.
And the coolest part about it. They are going to do it from within. Yep, they are still registered Democrats, and they still attend meetings, and boy, do they ever have all the dirt they need.
They're not just going after Obama. They are going after everybody who ever helped him, in the Congress, in the statehouses and legislatures, in the media. They are even going after Rahm Emmanuel and his run for the Chicago Mayor's office.
Let me make it clear. They are made as hell, at not only the way Hillary was treated, but at the way all of them, Hillary's supporters, were treated.
They are out for blood, vengeance, justice, and the death of the Democratic Party.
I think I'm in love.
The October Surprise That Exploded Prematurely
For three election cycles in a row, at least, somebody has attempted to use the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a way of scoring political points for the Democrats, just before an election. It's gone from the silly to the absurd-from panties on the heads of prisoners of war to alleged Guantanamo Bay abuses; from memos leaked from the British foreign office to the Lancet study and its wildly inflated casualty count.
Now we have the recent Wikileaks affair, which demonstrates the fanaticism of the Left to a remarkable degree. So cock-sure was Wikileaks that they were providing explosive ammunition to the anti-war, anti-Republican forces, they evidently didn't even bother to read the documents before they dumped them. Had they done so, they might have decided their time would better be spent hunting down Satanic grottoes in Delaware, or membership lists of Outlaw motorcycle gangs in Florida.
As it was, Wikileaks contained one major "revelation". American troops turned a blind eye to abuses of detainees by Iraqi police forces and Iraqi government officials.
Otherwise, the Wikileaks document dump did more harm than good. It revealed sources and methods that might result in lives of being at risk. It also revealed that, yes, there was some degree of WMD in Iraq after all, in the form of chemical weapons, including but not limited to canisters of mustard gas. And this is only what has so far been found in a vast country roughly the size of Texas, and doesn't even take into account others that might exist that are either yet to be found, or might have been surreptitiously transferred to someplace like Syria.
In other words-yes, people died, but Bush never lied.
More damning of all though was the infamous Lancet report that detailed the number of deaths due to the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation at being somewhere in the neighborhood of 650,000 to possibly as many as a million.
In reality, the number of deaths, according to the reports dumped by Wikileaks,was somewhere in the neighborhood of 165,000. This by the way is including combat insurgents, as well as American and allied forces. In other words, the number of deaths alleged by the Lancet Report are greatly exaggerated.
So in a sense, Wikileaks, for all the damage it did, at the same time performed what might yet turn out to be the most legitimately valuable service of it's checkered history yet. It pointed out the tendency of the Left to lie and exaggerate for political gain, even regarding subjects of important national security concerns. Is it any wonder the Wikileaks founder was so hard-pressed during a recent CNN interview that he walked out?
My own analysis-no one should ever volunteer for active duty in the military as long as there's a Democratic Party with any degree of power or influence. I know there are many who will question such a statement, and they are not just Democrats. Most Republicans would probably excoriate such a position as well. After all, in time of war, you're not fighting for the Democrats, or for the Republicans. Technically, you are not even fighting for "the government". You are fighting for your "country". You are fighting for mom and apple pie.
Unfortunately, such appeals to patriotism aside, you are not fighting for any of that, in reality. So then, what are you fighting for? Well, to begin with, the question is ill-phrased, because the fact is, you are not fighting at all. You are merely a part of an attempt to maintain a new status quo, and in so doing, sometimes you find yourself in combat situations where you have to defend yourself and your comrades. But there's no end-game in sight beyond some stated withdrawal point at some point in the clearly defined, yet all too nebulous future.
There is no end-game beyond that because, clearly-you are the end game. You just can't see that forest for all of those trees.
And that brings us back to the Democrats, who have hamstrung every war we have been involved with since at least the days of the Korean conflict. They do this by trying to impose some surreal battlefield version of Robert's Rules of Order. In this game of mortal combat, we are not so much trying to kill the enemy as we are trying to teach them proper etiquette. When they act rudely from time time, we unfortunately have to scold them, but only on those occasions when they really cross the line. Then, sure that we are on the right track and that given enough time the lessons will sink it, we go about the business of winning hearts and minds, secure in the knowledge that everybody in the world wants peace so badly, all we have to do is patiently point the way and set sterling examples of tolerance, understanding, and above all, patience.
As for the leader's enemies, the ones that call the shots, we look for the moderates among them, even among groups that by their natures are composed primarily of, and dominated wholly by, fundamentalists of the most fanatic stripe.
When we take them prisoner, we are further hamstrung in our interrogation efforts so much to the point that it seems as though the order of the day is "kill them with kindness". Unfortunately, while this might have once at least served to throw enemy combatants off balance to a limited degree, we very kindly help them cross that road, like the good Boy Scouts the military seems to have become these days.
After all, as we have been told by the Left for years, "we are better than them". Yes, the same Democratic politicians and leftist activists who insist that all cultures are equal and that there is no true good or evil-only cultural differences that should be met with tolerance and respect-insist out of the other side of their mouths that our own culture and values are superior, if only in this regard. How convenient.
Now of course Iraq is at best a very minor concern, relatively speaking, and we are now concerned mainly with Afghanistan, that "war of necessity" that the left used to insist we should have devoted our time and resources to instead of diverting our attention to Iraq.
Now of course they are changing their tune to the same old song and dance they used to sing about Iraq. And they wonder why so many people are leaving the dance early.
Ironically, Obama is caught in the same vise in Afghanistan that George W. Bush was caught in, in Iraq. He would like to withdraw, but can't, but he can't fight the war as he should, thanks to the Left, and to liberal Democrats in Congress.
All he can do is hope that somewhere, somehow, he can turn up some moderate Taliban members he can talk to. He's pretty sure he can make progress. After all, everybody wants peace, and will do or say anything to get it, right?
Now we have the recent Wikileaks affair, which demonstrates the fanaticism of the Left to a remarkable degree. So cock-sure was Wikileaks that they were providing explosive ammunition to the anti-war, anti-Republican forces, they evidently didn't even bother to read the documents before they dumped them. Had they done so, they might have decided their time would better be spent hunting down Satanic grottoes in Delaware, or membership lists of Outlaw motorcycle gangs in Florida.
As it was, Wikileaks contained one major "revelation". American troops turned a blind eye to abuses of detainees by Iraqi police forces and Iraqi government officials.
Otherwise, the Wikileaks document dump did more harm than good. It revealed sources and methods that might result in lives of being at risk. It also revealed that, yes, there was some degree of WMD in Iraq after all, in the form of chemical weapons, including but not limited to canisters of mustard gas. And this is only what has so far been found in a vast country roughly the size of Texas, and doesn't even take into account others that might exist that are either yet to be found, or might have been surreptitiously transferred to someplace like Syria.
In other words-yes, people died, but Bush never lied.
More damning of all though was the infamous Lancet report that detailed the number of deaths due to the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation at being somewhere in the neighborhood of 650,000 to possibly as many as a million.
In reality, the number of deaths, according to the reports dumped by Wikileaks,was somewhere in the neighborhood of 165,000. This by the way is including combat insurgents, as well as American and allied forces. In other words, the number of deaths alleged by the Lancet Report are greatly exaggerated.
So in a sense, Wikileaks, for all the damage it did, at the same time performed what might yet turn out to be the most legitimately valuable service of it's checkered history yet. It pointed out the tendency of the Left to lie and exaggerate for political gain, even regarding subjects of important national security concerns. Is it any wonder the Wikileaks founder was so hard-pressed during a recent CNN interview that he walked out?
My own analysis-no one should ever volunteer for active duty in the military as long as there's a Democratic Party with any degree of power or influence. I know there are many who will question such a statement, and they are not just Democrats. Most Republicans would probably excoriate such a position as well. After all, in time of war, you're not fighting for the Democrats, or for the Republicans. Technically, you are not even fighting for "the government". You are fighting for your "country". You are fighting for mom and apple pie.
Unfortunately, such appeals to patriotism aside, you are not fighting for any of that, in reality. So then, what are you fighting for? Well, to begin with, the question is ill-phrased, because the fact is, you are not fighting at all. You are merely a part of an attempt to maintain a new status quo, and in so doing, sometimes you find yourself in combat situations where you have to defend yourself and your comrades. But there's no end-game in sight beyond some stated withdrawal point at some point in the clearly defined, yet all too nebulous future.
There is no end-game beyond that because, clearly-you are the end game. You just can't see that forest for all of those trees.
And that brings us back to the Democrats, who have hamstrung every war we have been involved with since at least the days of the Korean conflict. They do this by trying to impose some surreal battlefield version of Robert's Rules of Order. In this game of mortal combat, we are not so much trying to kill the enemy as we are trying to teach them proper etiquette. When they act rudely from time time, we unfortunately have to scold them, but only on those occasions when they really cross the line. Then, sure that we are on the right track and that given enough time the lessons will sink it, we go about the business of winning hearts and minds, secure in the knowledge that everybody in the world wants peace so badly, all we have to do is patiently point the way and set sterling examples of tolerance, understanding, and above all, patience.
As for the leader's enemies, the ones that call the shots, we look for the moderates among them, even among groups that by their natures are composed primarily of, and dominated wholly by, fundamentalists of the most fanatic stripe.
When we take them prisoner, we are further hamstrung in our interrogation efforts so much to the point that it seems as though the order of the day is "kill them with kindness". Unfortunately, while this might have once at least served to throw enemy combatants off balance to a limited degree, we very kindly help them cross that road, like the good Boy Scouts the military seems to have become these days.
After all, as we have been told by the Left for years, "we are better than them". Yes, the same Democratic politicians and leftist activists who insist that all cultures are equal and that there is no true good or evil-only cultural differences that should be met with tolerance and respect-insist out of the other side of their mouths that our own culture and values are superior, if only in this regard. How convenient.
Now of course Iraq is at best a very minor concern, relatively speaking, and we are now concerned mainly with Afghanistan, that "war of necessity" that the left used to insist we should have devoted our time and resources to instead of diverting our attention to Iraq.
Now of course they are changing their tune to the same old song and dance they used to sing about Iraq. And they wonder why so many people are leaving the dance early.
Ironically, Obama is caught in the same vise in Afghanistan that George W. Bush was caught in, in Iraq. He would like to withdraw, but can't, but he can't fight the war as he should, thanks to the Left, and to liberal Democrats in Congress.
All he can do is hope that somewhere, somehow, he can turn up some moderate Taliban members he can talk to. He's pretty sure he can make progress. After all, everybody wants peace, and will do or say anything to get it, right?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Significant Election Complaint Filed In Nevada-Unions Trying To Steal Election For Democrats
You can read all about it at Red State
The gist of it-unions are busing employees to the poling places and, even more pertinent, are monitoring the voting activities of union members, making sure they vote the right way-which is to say, the left way, for the Democrats. They are probably most especially focused on the Senate race between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Sharon Angle, who has lately been leading in the polls.
Whether the capriciousness of the unions, or the complaint filed against them, will make any difference or not, only time will tell.
And as if to underscore the depths to which Democrats are willing to sink, its also been revealed that California Senator Democragt Barbara Boxer, running for re-election in the toughest race of her political career against Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, recently attempted to enlist the aid of teachers in California by suggesting they encourage students to volunteer for Boxer's campaign in return for extra credit.
In an Oct. 27 letter to California education authorities, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), a non-profit group urging lower taxes, said, “In abject ignorance of California state law, the political campaign of Senator Barbara Boxer has openly solicited teachers employed by [Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)] to urge their students to volunteer for her campaign.”
The HJTA letter refers to a letter obtained by the Flash Report, an influential California political blog, from the Boxer campaign that urges teachers to recruit their students to work for Boxer’s campaign.
“As you may know, Senator Boxer is facing her toughest race yet,” the letter from Boxer says, “please let us know if your students are able to help.”
And as I've already noted here, there's more examples of this kind of thing going on in Arizona.
If you ever needed proof positive that the Democratic Party and many of its backers amount to a criminal enterprise engaged in a criminal conspiracy designed to wrest and hold on to power by any means possible, you need look no further. But don't let that stop you. I'm sure all the examples I've just cited are the tip of the iceberg.
Yet, the ACLU has the gall to accuse conservatives of holding "cultish beliefs".
The gist of it-unions are busing employees to the poling places and, even more pertinent, are monitoring the voting activities of union members, making sure they vote the right way-which is to say, the left way, for the Democrats. They are probably most especially focused on the Senate race between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Sharon Angle, who has lately been leading in the polls.
Whether the capriciousness of the unions, or the complaint filed against them, will make any difference or not, only time will tell.
And as if to underscore the depths to which Democrats are willing to sink, its also been revealed that California Senator Democragt Barbara Boxer, running for re-election in the toughest race of her political career against Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, recently attempted to enlist the aid of teachers in California by suggesting they encourage students to volunteer for Boxer's campaign in return for extra credit.
In an Oct. 27 letter to California education authorities, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), a non-profit group urging lower taxes, said, “In abject ignorance of California state law, the political campaign of Senator Barbara Boxer has openly solicited teachers employed by [Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)] to urge their students to volunteer for her campaign.”
The HJTA letter refers to a letter obtained by the Flash Report, an influential California political blog, from the Boxer campaign that urges teachers to recruit their students to work for Boxer’s campaign.
“As you may know, Senator Boxer is facing her toughest race yet,” the letter from Boxer says, “please let us know if your students are able to help.”
And as I've already noted here, there's more examples of this kind of thing going on in Arizona.
If you ever needed proof positive that the Democratic Party and many of its backers amount to a criminal enterprise engaged in a criminal conspiracy designed to wrest and hold on to power by any means possible, you need look no further. But don't let that stop you. I'm sure all the examples I've just cited are the tip of the iceberg.
Yet, the ACLU has the gall to accuse conservatives of holding "cultish beliefs".
No Depths To Which Democrats Won't Seek To Please Nancy Pelosi
There's nothing Democrats in the House of Representatives are above doing if it means pleasing their party leaders, and when push comes to shove, this is even including the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats. Hopefully though, after this coming Tuesday, there will be a lot less Democrats in the House who who will be willing to sink this low in order to please and get along with Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, Nancy might well lose her position as Democratic leader, at which point she will find it that much harder to find people willing to do this vile deed.
In fact, Nancy might well lose her position as Democratic leader, at which point she will find it that much harder to find people willing to do this vile deed.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Joy Behar Reveals The Democrat Game Plan
In the video below, Joy Behar calls Sharon Angle a bitch for the second time, after Angle sends Behar flowers as a sarcastic and backhanded way of thanking her for all the donations Angle received after the first time Behar called Angle a bitch on The View.
What's this all about? Well apparently Behar is offended at some political ad Angle has been running that features illegal immigrants. Behar considers it racist, and on the first episode of The View where she discussed the subject, she stated that Angle was a bitch and that she was going to hell.
After receiving the flowers from Angle, Behar stated she doesn't believe in hell, but she still calls Angle a bitch.
So what's the big deal? Just typical political sniping, right?
Well, not exactly. Behar is genuinely pissed off, probably more at the prospect of Angle winning than over the content of one particular ad. And as is so often the case, when people are genuinely pissed, they tend to lose some control. Many times, they say things they should keep to themselves.
Watch the video and see if you come to the same conclusion I did. It's really pretty blatant.
In case it went past you, I'll spell it out. Behar tells Angle "those illegal immigrants aren't going to vote for you."
Presumably, those illegal immigrants, who are disqualified from voting, are going to vote for Harry Reid. I think Joy Behar is correct. Personally, I bet he carries their vote by a one-hundred percent margin.
See, people like Behar know what's going on, and they know how the game is played. When they hear of illegal immigrants filling out voter registration forms as recently happened in Arizona, or when they canvass at the behest of the SEIU on behalf of Harry Reid, they see that as a justifiable part of the process.
It's only on rare occasions, like this one, that they slip up and admit it openly.
H/T The Blaze
What's this all about? Well apparently Behar is offended at some political ad Angle has been running that features illegal immigrants. Behar considers it racist, and on the first episode of The View where she discussed the subject, she stated that Angle was a bitch and that she was going to hell.
After receiving the flowers from Angle, Behar stated she doesn't believe in hell, but she still calls Angle a bitch.
So what's the big deal? Just typical political sniping, right?
Well, not exactly. Behar is genuinely pissed off, probably more at the prospect of Angle winning than over the content of one particular ad. And as is so often the case, when people are genuinely pissed, they tend to lose some control. Many times, they say things they should keep to themselves.
Watch the video and see if you come to the same conclusion I did. It's really pretty blatant.
In case it went past you, I'll spell it out. Behar tells Angle "those illegal immigrants aren't going to vote for you."
Presumably, those illegal immigrants, who are disqualified from voting, are going to vote for Harry Reid. I think Joy Behar is correct. Personally, I bet he carries their vote by a one-hundred percent margin.
See, people like Behar know what's going on, and they know how the game is played. When they hear of illegal immigrants filling out voter registration forms as recently happened in Arizona, or when they canvass at the behest of the SEIU on behalf of Harry Reid, they see that as a justifiable part of the process.
It's only on rare occasions, like this one, that they slip up and admit it openly.
H/T The Blaze
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
MoveOn Supporter Gets Her Ass "Kicked"
IMPORTANT UPDATE FOLLOWS ORIGINAL POST-AFTER WHICH THERE'S YET A SECOND UPDATE
I've seen everything now. At the debate last night between Kentucky Senatorial candidates Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway, a woman tried to approach Rand Paul wearing a blond wig. This was noted by some Paul supporters, who recognized the woman was in disguise, and quite naturally assumed she might be a threat to Rand Paul's safety. Some of them grabbed her and wrestled her to the ground, whereupon an as yet to be identified man pressed his foot down on her back as a means of further restraining her until the police arrived, in response, by the way, to a call from someone from among Paul's supporters.
This was caught on video, and naturally the left is howling "assault", claiming the woman was "stomped".
They do this because they assume a lot of people are never going to see the video, and a lot of the ones that do will view it subjectively the way the left describes it. Well, there was no stomping or kicking involved.
Here's the video, go and see for yourself.
Amazingly, many GOP supporters can't seem to apologize fast enough, and I'm sure it won't be long before Republican party officials trip all over each other running to the news shows to assure voters that Republicans don't condone this kind of thing.
Again, there's nothing here. The woman was putting herself across as a member of a fake group, "Republicorps", a satirical front of MoveOn that claims to advocate in favor of corporate control of the GOP. But no one could have possibly known that, and if the bitch had ended up getting her ass royally kicked, frankly I couldn't care less, and say so unabashedly.
Unfortunately she didn't get her ass kicked. The guy who held his foot to her back and briefly pressed down, to my way of thinking, wasn't as "violent" as the ones who got her ass on the ground to begin with. Unfortunately, not enough of that was caught on video for the left to make hay about, at least not yet. But take it from me, it won't be too long after they find the guy, if they do, and maybe even before then, that you're going to hear cries for the entire crowd to be arrested.
You can be sure the media is going to have a field day with this. Of course, if a Rand Paul supporter had been held down and eviscerated by union thugs or other Jack Conway supporters, you could read all about it on page seventeen.
(End of original post)
UPDATE-
It seems like there was more than one stomping that took place that night. In fact, a Conway supporter assaulted a Ron Paul supporter.
From The Kentucky Post
The second occurred after a Conway supporter stepped on the foot of a female Rand supporter, who recently had foot surgery, according to police.
The woman was wearing a surgical boot, but after the injury, her incision was cut open. Police say she refused medical treatment and also filed an assault report.
(end of report)
Crickets from the jackass Democrats about the second incident, where a Rand Paul supporter was actually injured. Yet, I'm supposed to give a shit about some leftist scum who, like all MoveOn members is out to all intents and purposes basically to subvert the Constitution and turn the USA into a mirror image of European Socialist Democracy, by whatever tactic necessary.
Not in this lifetime.
2nd UPDATE-Not so much as an update as an afterthought. The supporters of Ron Paul present and involved in this incident, including Mr. Proffit, honestly viewed the woman as a threat, possibly even a potential assassin. They didn't magically realize that she was in fact no more than a paid protester in the employ of George Soros's MoveOn the minute they had her on the ground. They understandable still viewed her as a potential threat, thinking she might have been carrying a gun or some other type of weapon. They reasoned no doubt that if this were the case, she might well be unhinged enough to use any weapon she might have at the slightest opportunity.
When viewed in this complete context, it becomes easier to comprehend why the actions of the Paul supporters were not only understandable, but appropriate, and yes this includes the actions of Proffit, who has stated that his intention was no more than to assist in keeping the woman restrained until the proper authorities arrives. He has also added that he could not bend down to restrain her with his arms because he has issues with his back.
That's the story. Contrast that with the Conway supporter who stomped on the foot of a female Paul supporter, who was wearing a clearly visible surgical boot.
Of course, this kind of selective, manufactured outrage by Democrats, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is meant for nothing more or less than to sway votes to Conway from the ranks of the yet undecided. It might even work. If it does, its only because Republicans are allowing themselves to be put on defense.
It's time for Republicans to find their collective balls and collectively put a boot up the ass of the Democratic Party-figuratively, of course-not just in Kentucky, but nationally.
I've seen everything now. At the debate last night between Kentucky Senatorial candidates Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway, a woman tried to approach Rand Paul wearing a blond wig. This was noted by some Paul supporters, who recognized the woman was in disguise, and quite naturally assumed she might be a threat to Rand Paul's safety. Some of them grabbed her and wrestled her to the ground, whereupon an as yet to be identified man pressed his foot down on her back as a means of further restraining her until the police arrived, in response, by the way, to a call from someone from among Paul's supporters.
This was caught on video, and naturally the left is howling "assault", claiming the woman was "stomped".
They do this because they assume a lot of people are never going to see the video, and a lot of the ones that do will view it subjectively the way the left describes it. Well, there was no stomping or kicking involved.
Here's the video, go and see for yourself.
Amazingly, many GOP supporters can't seem to apologize fast enough, and I'm sure it won't be long before Republican party officials trip all over each other running to the news shows to assure voters that Republicans don't condone this kind of thing.
Again, there's nothing here. The woman was putting herself across as a member of a fake group, "Republicorps", a satirical front of MoveOn that claims to advocate in favor of corporate control of the GOP. But no one could have possibly known that, and if the bitch had ended up getting her ass royally kicked, frankly I couldn't care less, and say so unabashedly.
Unfortunately she didn't get her ass kicked. The guy who held his foot to her back and briefly pressed down, to my way of thinking, wasn't as "violent" as the ones who got her ass on the ground to begin with. Unfortunately, not enough of that was caught on video for the left to make hay about, at least not yet. But take it from me, it won't be too long after they find the guy, if they do, and maybe even before then, that you're going to hear cries for the entire crowd to be arrested.
You can be sure the media is going to have a field day with this. Of course, if a Rand Paul supporter had been held down and eviscerated by union thugs or other Jack Conway supporters, you could read all about it on page seventeen.
(End of original post)
UPDATE-
It seems like there was more than one stomping that took place that night. In fact, a Conway supporter assaulted a Ron Paul supporter.
From The Kentucky Post
The second occurred after a Conway supporter stepped on the foot of a female Rand supporter, who recently had foot surgery, according to police.
The woman was wearing a surgical boot, but after the injury, her incision was cut open. Police say she refused medical treatment and also filed an assault report.
(end of report)
Crickets from the jackass Democrats about the second incident, where a Rand Paul supporter was actually injured. Yet, I'm supposed to give a shit about some leftist scum who, like all MoveOn members is out to all intents and purposes basically to subvert the Constitution and turn the USA into a mirror image of European Socialist Democracy, by whatever tactic necessary.
Not in this lifetime.
2nd UPDATE-Not so much as an update as an afterthought. The supporters of Ron Paul present and involved in this incident, including Mr. Proffit, honestly viewed the woman as a threat, possibly even a potential assassin. They didn't magically realize that she was in fact no more than a paid protester in the employ of George Soros's MoveOn the minute they had her on the ground. They understandable still viewed her as a potential threat, thinking she might have been carrying a gun or some other type of weapon. They reasoned no doubt that if this were the case, she might well be unhinged enough to use any weapon she might have at the slightest opportunity.
When viewed in this complete context, it becomes easier to comprehend why the actions of the Paul supporters were not only understandable, but appropriate, and yes this includes the actions of Proffit, who has stated that his intention was no more than to assist in keeping the woman restrained until the proper authorities arrives. He has also added that he could not bend down to restrain her with his arms because he has issues with his back.
That's the story. Contrast that with the Conway supporter who stomped on the foot of a female Paul supporter, who was wearing a clearly visible surgical boot.
Of course, this kind of selective, manufactured outrage by Democrats, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is meant for nothing more or less than to sway votes to Conway from the ranks of the yet undecided. It might even work. If it does, its only because Republicans are allowing themselves to be put on defense.
It's time for Republicans to find their collective balls and collectively put a boot up the ass of the Democratic Party-figuratively, of course-not just in Kentucky, but nationally.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Dupe And Chains
Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have manipulated Progressives For A Century is a new book by Doctor Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College in Grove City Pennsylvania. The book is based on declassified Soviet archives archives and FBI files.
One of the subjects of the book is a man named Frank Marshall Davis, who was a longtime member of the Communist Party of America. The fact that this group was nothing more, or less, than a propaganda arm of the Soviet Union seems like nothing more than an interesting piece of almost forgotten, maybe even relatively insignificant, American history.
It takes on a more timely perspective once you realize that Davis was, in fact, the mentor of a young Barak Hussein Obama.
Big Peace has posted a two part interview with Doctor Kengor, in which he goes into startling detail as to the influence of Davis on Obama, an influence that has extended to our own modern era through Obama's current policies.
Big Peace: Speaking of whom, give us an example from Davis’s columns that gets closer to what President Obama has done since taking office, given that Obama isn’t trying to “rule Russia,” for example.
Kengor: There are a lot of them, from Davis preaching government healthcare, wealth redistribution, bashing Wall Street, advocating all kinds of nationalizations, trumpeting the public sector over the private sector, lambasting profits, excoriating the “tentacles of big business,” you name it. But one that haunts me is a piece I read by Frank Marshall Davis from January 26, 1950, titled “Free Enterprise or Socialism?”
There, Davis targeted GM. Davis was enraged that General Motors, this “gigantic company,” had “made a profit last year of $600,000,000.” He felt that the federal government needed to get a hold of GM. He characterized GM as a “monopoly,” mainly because of this success, which infuriated Davis. He wrote: “the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”
Davis concluded the piece by asserting, “Before too long, our nation will have to decide whether we shall have free enterprise or socialism.”
Interesting reading. Bear in mind, Davis acted as a foreign Soviet agent, who disseminated Stalin-era Soviet propaganda aimed at the American government, against such leaders as Truman and Marshall, while advocating for a good many policies Obama has advocated or enacted today.
Its amazing when you stop to consider-Obama might well have been indoctrinated by a foreign agent, propagandizing on behalf of a system long since defunct.
Change you can believe in.
One of the subjects of the book is a man named Frank Marshall Davis, who was a longtime member of the Communist Party of America. The fact that this group was nothing more, or less, than a propaganda arm of the Soviet Union seems like nothing more than an interesting piece of almost forgotten, maybe even relatively insignificant, American history.
It takes on a more timely perspective once you realize that Davis was, in fact, the mentor of a young Barak Hussein Obama.
Big Peace has posted a two part interview with Doctor Kengor, in which he goes into startling detail as to the influence of Davis on Obama, an influence that has extended to our own modern era through Obama's current policies.
Big Peace: Speaking of whom, give us an example from Davis’s columns that gets closer to what President Obama has done since taking office, given that Obama isn’t trying to “rule Russia,” for example.
Kengor: There are a lot of them, from Davis preaching government healthcare, wealth redistribution, bashing Wall Street, advocating all kinds of nationalizations, trumpeting the public sector over the private sector, lambasting profits, excoriating the “tentacles of big business,” you name it. But one that haunts me is a piece I read by Frank Marshall Davis from January 26, 1950, titled “Free Enterprise or Socialism?”
There, Davis targeted GM. Davis was enraged that General Motors, this “gigantic company,” had “made a profit last year of $600,000,000.” He felt that the federal government needed to get a hold of GM. He characterized GM as a “monopoly,” mainly because of this success, which infuriated Davis. He wrote: “the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”
Davis concluded the piece by asserting, “Before too long, our nation will have to decide whether we shall have free enterprise or socialism.”
Interesting reading. Bear in mind, Davis acted as a foreign Soviet agent, who disseminated Stalin-era Soviet propaganda aimed at the American government, against such leaders as Truman and Marshall, while advocating for a good many policies Obama has advocated or enacted today.
Its amazing when you stop to consider-Obama might well have been indoctrinated by a foreign agent, propagandizing on behalf of a system long since defunct.
Change you can believe in.
Barney Frank-The Emperor Knows No Bounds
No matter how well conservatives do this coming election, they are still going to have their share of disappointments, maybe a good many more than they think they will. I would almost be willing to lay odds on what some of them might be, and one of the first races I would be willing to bet good money is going to bring a great deal of disappointment to conservatives is the race for Massachusetts 4th district House seat, where Congressman Barney Frank is in the middle of the toughest race of his political career.
But, Frank will no doubt win his race, and by the time the last votes are counted, he will have probably won it quite handily, probably with a margin of at least just south of ten percent.
That's a shame, because if anyone deserves to lose, its Barney Frank, but the Republicans, who recently released an add depicting a disco dancing Barney Frank, themselves ironically keep dancing around the issues where Frank is the weakest-his personal life.
This is no doubt because the Republicans, and by extension Frank's opponent in the race, Sean Bielat, are afraid of coming across as homophobic. That is unfathomable to me. Were Frank to be a heterosexual noted to have a string of younger girlfriends, all of whom benefited from his stature and power as one of the most influential Congressmen in Washington, could there be any doubt they would jump all over it? After all, the pertinent point isn't the Congressman's sexual preference, it is his corruption, his abuse of power, and his apparent blindness in some cases to situations that are rampant with conflict of interest. Its a good thing for Barney Frank that he is gay, as if he was straight, he probably would have been long gone by now.
But, since he's gay, everybody gives him a wide berth when it comes to these matters. As a result, Barney Frank continues on his path of vice and corruption, like some ancient Roman Emperor, so secure in his status and his standing with the masses, he no longer feels he has to worry about propriety, or appearances, or accountability.
And that my friends is where we now stand, and where we shall now proceed. What exactly would be a better electoral campaign to run against this corrupt, despicable toad than to show him for what he really is? With this in mind, I now present to you my own proposal for an ad against Barney Frank. I call it-
THE EMPEROR KNOWS NO BOUNDS
Setting-A modern day version of an ancient Roman banquet. A look-alike Barney Frank is surrounded by a bevy of men, mostly younger, all strong and well-built. “Barney” reclines in the center of the room, as all the young men view him attentively, apparently hanging expectantly on his every word. He gazes longing at a young boyish man playing a lyre. In the middle of the room is a table filled with the most exquisite foods and wines. Barney and his friends eat and drink heartily, Barney partaking lasciviously of a kebab one of his young suitors has just proffered to him, while not too far off, other young male couples dance with hedonistic delight.
(V/O-Ever since he arrived in Washington, Barney Frank has been the epitome of corruption and debauchery. He fixed parking tickets and influenced the probation officer of his live-in boyfriend, who ran a gay brothel out of Frank's own Washington home. Yet, despite his much heralded intelligence, Congressman Frank denied any knowledge of this activity, on-going under his nose. Much like his denial of knowledge that his current boyfriend was recently arrested for possession of marijuana-despite the fact that Frank was present at the time of the bust.)
At this point the camera pans around the room. One of the young gay men takes a hit off what appears to be a joint of marijuana which he then passes to another young man sitting beside him, as Barney looks on approvingly. At this point, an apparently devoted man begins massaging Frank's thighs with heated oil, while another feeds him graps and as some of the men continue to pass around the joint, others begin to dance, swaying to the sounds of raucous music suddenly playing, as the young lyre player takes a seat by Barney, and another man begins what appears to be the beginning stages of a strip-dance.
(V/O-Barney Frank even abused his position as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, where he fought to protect the interests of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, helping them to benefit from government regulations while simultaneously hiding their many financial irregularities. And what is more telling-for some time leading up to this, he had engaged in a romantic relationship with a high-powered executive of Fannie Mae.)
Here, Barney Frank presents the young lyre player with a magnificently garish diamond necklace.
“Thank you Mr. Frank” the boy gushes appreciatively.
“Oh, don't thank me, sweetheart”, Frank replies. “Thank the American taxpayer”.
At this, the entire room erupts, joining Frank in uncontrolled laughter.
(V/O)-On November 2nd, tell Barney Frank that Washington is not the place for debauchery and corruption. Send him packing. Send Sean Bielat to Washington. Because the 4th district deserves better than Barney Frank.)
The piece could be augmented by flashes of newspaper copy with headlines to supplement the voice-over, but on the other hand-what's the point? Sean Bielat would never run an ad like this, and if he did, it would probably be strongly denounced by his own party. But, it would get the point across, despite the almost certain howls and accusations of homophobia sure to be trumpeted by the left, and for that matter most Democrats, and not a few Republicans.
But if it made the point to enough people who got the message-its about corruption, not Frank's gay lifestyle-wouldn't it be worth the criticism? What counts is the final tally of votes, and if this wouldn't do the trick, then nothing else would anyway.
And at the very least, it would show the country that the National Republican Party does have-well, balls.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
October Surprise-Election Fraud Charge Leads To "Terrorist Attack"
Raul Grijalva is the Democratic incumbent House member running for re-election in Arizona's 8th district, and he's in a bit of a battle with GOP challenger Ruth McClung, a Tea-Party backed conservative who has lately been surging in the polls in what should be a safe race for Grijalva.
Evidently "somebody" sent a suspicious looking package to Grijalva's campaign headquarters. Even though the package was marked on the outside with clearly marked swastika's, it seems to have made it past Post Office scrutiny, and on to its target destination, where it was revealed to contain a suspicious white powder.
According to a Tucson Fire Department official who wasin on the scam "investigated" the package and its content, the substance was a toxic agent known as hydroxyacetanilide.
Almost immediately, moonbat extraordinaire Oliver Willis insinuated this to be the work of the Tea-Party.
Unfortunately, the truth came out, courtesy of the FBI. The substance was not hydroxyacetanilide after all. Whatever the substance was, it was in fact not toxic at all-
The white powder contained in a suspicious package mailed to Rep. Raul Grijalva’s district office in Tucson, Ariz., was “non-toxic,” the FBI said Friday.
FBI Special Agent Manuel Johnson declined to identify the substance, saying the investigation is ongoing. But he said results of a chemical analysis performed on the substance came out negative.
The FBI conclusion contradicts Grijalva’s office, which said Thursday it was informed by the Tucson Fire Department that the substance found in an envelope with drawings of two swastikas was a “confirmed toxin” known as hydroxyacetanilide.
Of course, the real scandal preceded this event, and has been mostly ignored by major news organizations. As it turns out, a voter's advocacy group with connections to the SEIU had just days earlier been caught in what might turn out to be a massive case of voter fraud, on a statewide scale.
More than 20,000 new voter registration forms had been delivered, almost all registered Democrat. Roughly 3,000 of these new voter registration forms were from Grijalva's district.
And, as it turns out, at least 65% of these new voter registration forms are fraudulent, made up largely of illegal immigrants and others without a valid address.
Moonbattery calls the alleged toxin story an act of desperation on the part of the Grijalva campaign, while The Other McCain adds that the alleged terrorist attack is likely a "hate hoax"
This in fact seems to be standard practice among leftist political activists. Publius Pundit goes so far as to allege that the Grijalva campaign has so much as admitted to utilizing this tactic.
Raul Grijalva part-time staffer Emily Romero has repeatedly bragged to Democratic insiders that the campaign concocts these threats to take attention away from bad publicity. In this case, the campaign decided to fake a “terrorist attack” on themselves to cover up the story of voter fraud that had just broken.
What is more to the point is, Grijalva has more than enough reason to use a terrorist hoax in order to divert voters attention away from the facts regarding his sorry congressional record. In the recent controversy over the new Arizona law against illegal immigration-a law that almost exactly mirrors the federal law which the federal government is hesitant to enforce, Grijalva came down firmly on the side of the federal government, and on the side of illegal immigrants and their liberal activist supporters, against his own state.
Which, one could make the point that Grijalva, as a sitting Congressman, certainly has the right to speak against state laws which he considers unjust or ill-advised. Grijalva, however, did not stop there. In speaking against the law, he went so far as to endorse a recommended boycott of Arizona.
Think about that for just a few seconds. Take a few minutes to digest it. It's not enough that Grijalva has been in the front line of fighting any kind of common sense attempts at securing the border in order to stem the tide of illegal immigrants swarming into his state, and the country. It's not enough that he expects the state of Arizona to stand down in the face of such an overwhelming influx of immigrants, many of whom are draining the social services systems, and contributing to a sky-rocketing crime rate, to say nothing of all the national security implications all this might at some point entail.
GRIJALVA RECOMMENDED A BOYCOTT OF HIS STATE-HIS OWN FUCKING STATE!
Is it any wonder that Ruth McClung, an attractive candidate, one who is well-versed and well-spoken on the issues, is, even though a conservative Republican, gaining ground in what is a district which is usually considered reliably Democratic? She is down in the polls, yes, but not by much, only about seven percentage points, and surging, in what is basically a Democratic stronghold?
Of course, there's possibly another factor involved. As I posted earlier here, Grijalva was one of a group of Senators and House members who signed a letter requesting diplomatic courtesies be extended to Code Pink during their sojourn to Iraq, where they engaged in giving aid and comfort to the enemy-the same enemy who was engaged in hostile actions against American soldiers.
It should not come as a shock to Rep. Grijalva, nor to anyone, to learn that a respectable percentage of American soldiers, including but not limited to those who are or have been engaged in combat actions in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, come from the Latino community. In all probability, a good many of them hail from Congressman Grivalja's district.
It should therefore not exactly come as no surprise that many of these Latino Americans might not look too kindly on the Congressman's actions, and though they might be among what amounts to a minority of Latinos who might choose to vote for his opponent, one should certainly not be unduly surprised were they to swell the ranks of those Latinos who are disaffected with Grijalva, and the Democratic Party in general, and therefore decide that they, Arizona and America, needs and deserves better.
Evidently "somebody" sent a suspicious looking package to Grijalva's campaign headquarters. Even though the package was marked on the outside with clearly marked swastika's, it seems to have made it past Post Office scrutiny, and on to its target destination, where it was revealed to contain a suspicious white powder.
According to a Tucson Fire Department official who was
Almost immediately, moonbat extraordinaire Oliver Willis insinuated this to be the work of the Tea-Party.
Unfortunately, the truth came out, courtesy of the FBI. The substance was not hydroxyacetanilide after all. Whatever the substance was, it was in fact not toxic at all-
The white powder contained in a suspicious package mailed to Rep. Raul Grijalva’s district office in Tucson, Ariz., was “non-toxic,” the FBI said Friday.
FBI Special Agent Manuel Johnson declined to identify the substance, saying the investigation is ongoing. But he said results of a chemical analysis performed on the substance came out negative.
The FBI conclusion contradicts Grijalva’s office, which said Thursday it was informed by the Tucson Fire Department that the substance found in an envelope with drawings of two swastikas was a “confirmed toxin” known as hydroxyacetanilide.
Of course, the real scandal preceded this event, and has been mostly ignored by major news organizations. As it turns out, a voter's advocacy group with connections to the SEIU had just days earlier been caught in what might turn out to be a massive case of voter fraud, on a statewide scale.
More than 20,000 new voter registration forms had been delivered, almost all registered Democrat. Roughly 3,000 of these new voter registration forms were from Grijalva's district.
And, as it turns out, at least 65% of these new voter registration forms are fraudulent, made up largely of illegal immigrants and others without a valid address.
Moonbattery calls the alleged toxin story an act of desperation on the part of the Grijalva campaign, while The Other McCain adds that the alleged terrorist attack is likely a "hate hoax"
This in fact seems to be standard practice among leftist political activists. Publius Pundit goes so far as to allege that the Grijalva campaign has so much as admitted to utilizing this tactic.
Raul Grijalva part-time staffer Emily Romero has repeatedly bragged to Democratic insiders that the campaign concocts these threats to take attention away from bad publicity. In this case, the campaign decided to fake a “terrorist attack” on themselves to cover up the story of voter fraud that had just broken.
What is more to the point is, Grijalva has more than enough reason to use a terrorist hoax in order to divert voters attention away from the facts regarding his sorry congressional record. In the recent controversy over the new Arizona law against illegal immigration-a law that almost exactly mirrors the federal law which the federal government is hesitant to enforce, Grijalva came down firmly on the side of the federal government, and on the side of illegal immigrants and their liberal activist supporters, against his own state.
Which, one could make the point that Grijalva, as a sitting Congressman, certainly has the right to speak against state laws which he considers unjust or ill-advised. Grijalva, however, did not stop there. In speaking against the law, he went so far as to endorse a recommended boycott of Arizona.
Think about that for just a few seconds. Take a few minutes to digest it. It's not enough that Grijalva has been in the front line of fighting any kind of common sense attempts at securing the border in order to stem the tide of illegal immigrants swarming into his state, and the country. It's not enough that he expects the state of Arizona to stand down in the face of such an overwhelming influx of immigrants, many of whom are draining the social services systems, and contributing to a sky-rocketing crime rate, to say nothing of all the national security implications all this might at some point entail.
GRIJALVA RECOMMENDED A BOYCOTT OF HIS STATE-HIS OWN FUCKING STATE!
Is it any wonder that Ruth McClung, an attractive candidate, one who is well-versed and well-spoken on the issues, is, even though a conservative Republican, gaining ground in what is a district which is usually considered reliably Democratic? She is down in the polls, yes, but not by much, only about seven percentage points, and surging, in what is basically a Democratic stronghold?
Of course, there's possibly another factor involved. As I posted earlier here, Grijalva was one of a group of Senators and House members who signed a letter requesting diplomatic courtesies be extended to Code Pink during their sojourn to Iraq, where they engaged in giving aid and comfort to the enemy-the same enemy who was engaged in hostile actions against American soldiers.
It should not come as a shock to Rep. Grijalva, nor to anyone, to learn that a respectable percentage of American soldiers, including but not limited to those who are or have been engaged in combat actions in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, come from the Latino community. In all probability, a good many of them hail from Congressman Grivalja's district.
It should therefore not exactly come as no surprise that many of these Latino Americans might not look too kindly on the Congressman's actions, and though they might be among what amounts to a minority of Latinos who might choose to vote for his opponent, one should certainly not be unduly surprised were they to swell the ranks of those Latinos who are disaffected with Grijalva, and the Democratic Party in general, and therefore decide that they, Arizona and America, needs and deserves better.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Juan Williams Fired by NPR
Erick Erickson relates the story of NPR's firing of Juan Williams here. Williams made the mistake of confessing, on The O'Reilly factor no less, that he was uneasy in the presence of Muslims on planes. This did not set well with NPR executives, who terminated Williams' contract on the grounds that it did not meet their standards. Yet, Williams was not engaging in an Islamaphobic diatribe, he was just expressing a reality shared by millions of ordinary Americans, a basic human and quite understandable, natural reaction to what many under the right set of circumstances might view as a potential threat to their personal safety.
Given that he was in fact cautioning against giving in to ungrounded fear, and engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, it seems strange that he should have been terminated by NPR, and vastly unfair on top of that.
You can contact the ombudsman for NPR here, if you would like to weigh in with your opinion. If you do so, I advise a calm, moderate approach. Remember, these are liberal folks who, by the time they get around to reading your words, are likely to be either coming down from a pot high, or surrounded by a haze of pot smoke even as they read your words. You have to be gentle with them, but firm. Remember, there is also a better than passing chance they might be in the beginning stages of dementia, so a calm, soothing voice is of the utmost importance. And yes, I did say voice. It is the internet, so remember-they can probably hear you.
Following is the missive I sent them earlier. It might provide a basic guideline as to how best to approach them. You don't want to appear to angry. Yes, they can probably see you as well.
My e-mail to the ombudsman-
You not only need to rehire Juan Williams, you should issue an official, on the air apology to him. For the record, I am not afraid of Muslims when I see them on planes, for the simple fact I don't fly, in large part because of them (that and the airlines' lousy service, and policies).
Also, may I point out that Juan Williams was not promoting anti-Muslim bigotry or intolerance, (or whatever the irritating PC buzz-phrase of the day might be), he was merely reflecting a state of mind that is shared by millions of Americans. Trying to pretend it does not exist (or that it is held only by anti-Muslim "bigots") is not going to change the fact that it is a prevalent, if not a predominant, attitude.
Let's have a discussion of this issue, preferably with a minimum of condescension from the know-it-all elites who are oh so above all the rest of us.
Fire Andrea Mitchell has a bit of a different take on the matter. Although not in agreement with NPR's actions, they feel that, in reality, Juan Williams is part of the problem with the PC ethos that has pervaded and poisoned public discourse over the course of so many decades that it almost seems normal. As such, they feel that Williams got exactly what he deserved, and so "good riddance".
Which, come to think of it, finds the blog in a rare position of agreement with such stalwart leftist blogs as Talk Left and Andrew Sullivan, who describes Williams remarks as "the working definition of bigotry". In fact, this all seems to be the typical meme on the left, who all seem to concur that the firing of Juan Williams has been much too long in coming.
Professor William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection attributes this attitude on the left to Williams acknowledgment of the prevalence of negative stereotypes, while Riehl World View takes it a step further in positing that Williams is disliked by the left, and was ultimately fired because he is black.
No, Williams didn't go so far as to be a heretical black conservative, but perhaps even worse than that, he is a make-believe liberal who is just a little too cozy and comfortable with the rich white conservative establishment. I'm afraid that makes just a little too much sense to disregard in its entirety. Under this scenario, which I believe has a great deal of merit, Juan Williams is much worse than a mere "Uncle Tom". He's a minstrel show performer.
Here is NPR's explanation for their actions, which might better pass the smell test were it not for their continued support of a cartoon, by an NPR cartoonist, titled How To Speak Tea-Bag.
In other words, the Left has revealed itself to be, as we already knew, blatant hypocrites with one standard they apply to themselves, and quite another for everybody else who falls into that great "other"-we barbarians at the gates.
For what its worth, I think this might be the best thing that could have happened, given the timing in proximity to the coming elections now just under two weeks away.
This is the kind of atmosphere that is predominant when the left has a position of prominence. And, as we all know, the Left tends to vote Democrat (what ones don't go that extra mile and vote Socialist, Green, or Communist).
This might be one of hopefully many examples of an October Surprise to benefit the right, only one in this case which the left has gladly and arrogantly gift-wrapped and hand-delivered.
Given that he was in fact cautioning against giving in to ungrounded fear, and engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, it seems strange that he should have been terminated by NPR, and vastly unfair on top of that.
You can contact the ombudsman for NPR here, if you would like to weigh in with your opinion. If you do so, I advise a calm, moderate approach. Remember, these are liberal folks who, by the time they get around to reading your words, are likely to be either coming down from a pot high, or surrounded by a haze of pot smoke even as they read your words. You have to be gentle with them, but firm. Remember, there is also a better than passing chance they might be in the beginning stages of dementia, so a calm, soothing voice is of the utmost importance. And yes, I did say voice. It is the internet, so remember-they can probably hear you.
Following is the missive I sent them earlier. It might provide a basic guideline as to how best to approach them. You don't want to appear to angry. Yes, they can probably see you as well.
My e-mail to the ombudsman-
You not only need to rehire Juan Williams, you should issue an official, on the air apology to him. For the record, I am not afraid of Muslims when I see them on planes, for the simple fact I don't fly, in large part because of them (that and the airlines' lousy service, and policies).
Also, may I point out that Juan Williams was not promoting anti-Muslim bigotry or intolerance, (or whatever the irritating PC buzz-phrase of the day might be), he was merely reflecting a state of mind that is shared by millions of Americans. Trying to pretend it does not exist (or that it is held only by anti-Muslim "bigots") is not going to change the fact that it is a prevalent, if not a predominant, attitude.
Let's have a discussion of this issue, preferably with a minimum of condescension from the know-it-all elites who are oh so above all the rest of us.
Fire Andrea Mitchell has a bit of a different take on the matter. Although not in agreement with NPR's actions, they feel that, in reality, Juan Williams is part of the problem with the PC ethos that has pervaded and poisoned public discourse over the course of so many decades that it almost seems normal. As such, they feel that Williams got exactly what he deserved, and so "good riddance".
Which, come to think of it, finds the blog in a rare position of agreement with such stalwart leftist blogs as Talk Left and Andrew Sullivan, who describes Williams remarks as "the working definition of bigotry". In fact, this all seems to be the typical meme on the left, who all seem to concur that the firing of Juan Williams has been much too long in coming.
Professor William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection attributes this attitude on the left to Williams acknowledgment of the prevalence of negative stereotypes, while Riehl World View takes it a step further in positing that Williams is disliked by the left, and was ultimately fired because he is black.
No, Williams didn't go so far as to be a heretical black conservative, but perhaps even worse than that, he is a make-believe liberal who is just a little too cozy and comfortable with the rich white conservative establishment. I'm afraid that makes just a little too much sense to disregard in its entirety. Under this scenario, which I believe has a great deal of merit, Juan Williams is much worse than a mere "Uncle Tom". He's a minstrel show performer.
Here is NPR's explanation for their actions, which might better pass the smell test were it not for their continued support of a cartoon, by an NPR cartoonist, titled How To Speak Tea-Bag.
In other words, the Left has revealed itself to be, as we already knew, blatant hypocrites with one standard they apply to themselves, and quite another for everybody else who falls into that great "other"-we barbarians at the gates.
For what its worth, I think this might be the best thing that could have happened, given the timing in proximity to the coming elections now just under two weeks away.
This is the kind of atmosphere that is predominant when the left has a position of prominence. And, as we all know, the Left tends to vote Democrat (what ones don't go that extra mile and vote Socialist, Green, or Communist).
This might be one of hopefully many examples of an October Surprise to benefit the right, only one in this case which the left has gladly and arrogantly gift-wrapped and hand-delivered.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Nor Prohibit The Free Exercise Thereof
The scariest thing about the so-called "gaffe" by Delaware Republic Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell in the last debate between her and her Democratic opponent Chris Coons wasn't her questioning the presence in the constitution of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. It was that there seems to have been a room full of law students who don't really know or understand the First Amendment.
It was like walking into a room full of retarded people and saying "well, I see there aren't exactly any Einsteins in here"-and being greeted by howls of laughter.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is arguably the most flawed statement in the constitution, and has caused a lot of problems, due to the inherent fact that it was, on the face of it, somewhat short-sighted. When it was first written, this was an entirely Christian nation, but of multiple denominations. The clause was meant to insure, simply, that no single one of these Christian denominations would ever be granted status as THE state religion. It was an attempt to insure there would never be a "Church of America" that would predominate and potentially oppress other Christian denominations.
Thus, if you were a Catholic, or a Baptist, etc., the government could not, on behalf of any other denomination, prohibit your freedom to exercise your religious beliefs-in public or in private. Nor could it prohibit any church or denomination from meeting, holding services, taking tithes, or proselytizing, or from performing any other generally understood and accepted function of a religious denomination.
That was the whole extent of it, and it applied solely to the limits of the power of the federal government over this matter, as indeed was and is the case with all of the Bill of Rights. With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these restrictions were further extended to the states in regards to the rights of its individual private citizens, or in the case of this amendment, religious organizations.
But nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" occur. This was a phrase first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in the way of explaining one aspect of the clause, to wit, that the government could not interfere with their rights.
Of course, things have changed in ways the founders could not have envisioned. Now we have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Pagans, and the clause now also applies to any of them to the extent that they are American citizens. Neither the state of Kentucky nor the federal government, nor my present hometown, has no more of a legitimate right to prevent me from participating in public rituals, or conducting my own private ones, than it does to prohibit Catholics from performing devotions to the Blessed Virgin, or to prevent Jews from conducting the next Passover celebration.
Naturally, there has been some chipping around the margins of religious expressions due to the unexpected influx of religions from then foreign cultures. As such, laws against polygamy have come into play, advocacy for women's rights and the protection of children have become predominant over the rights of religious expression, when those things have the potential to come into conflict. Other than these kinds of exceptions, however, owing solely to the extent they do come into conflict with the laws of society, government has no legitimate right to limit, restrict, or to ban religious expression, of any faith, whether it pertain to the majority Christian, or to the smallest minority sect.
Ironically, the same people that loudly trumpet the first part of the clause-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-seem to conveniently gloss over the corresponding portion-nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives government the right to prohibit religious expression, either on public or on private property, and it most certainly does not require, or even suggest, that the government should have the right to restrict legitimate religious expression or practice of Christian denominations for the presumed protection or other benefits of minority faiths. To imagine or to proffer that it does is turning the entire spirit of the First Amendment completely on its head. It does the exact opposite, in fact.
Not only does it prohibit such restrictions on religious expression, it actually encourages religious expressions and beliefs, of all religions. Religious expression in this country has always been a tradition. It was never restricted by the government, nor even within the government. The founders intent was quite plain on all these matters. Separation of church and state, when viewed in this context, is clearly a misnomer, and that was Christine O'Donnell's point. Separation of church and state has been used as a battering ram in order to minimize the extent of public expressions of religion. In some cases it has been used as an excuse to outright ban such religious expressions, which is not only turning the constitution on its head, its actually turning it into the very opposite of its original intent.
There is no legitimate right for the government, whether it be federal, state, or local government, to ban religious expression. In fact, it has the obligation to not do this, just as it has the further obligation to refrain from promoting or imposing a specific religious doctrine. That's the extent of it.
Again, that's what Christine O'Donnell was saying, and she was one hundred percent correct. The fact that law students in a university setting would find humor and presumably reason for derision in her remarks should give us all cause for concern. It's really quite sad, but of course, there is a political component to this.
Her opponent, Chris Coons, did not know the First Amendment as well as she did, and this is demonstrable, though of course you do not see this fact discussed by leftist bloggers and pundits. But the proof of this is a matter of public record.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said
The fact remains, no one has a legitimate reason to think that the establishment clause presupposes that no religious expression should ever be permitted in a public setting, whether such expressions are made by private citizens or by (gasp) public officials.
In fact, the right to free and open expression of religion is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, and applies to all American citizens, of any and all faiths. That obligation in itself would seem to make it quite impossible for there to be "separation of church and state"-certainly to the extent that such a doctrine is defined by the left.
It was like walking into a room full of retarded people and saying "well, I see there aren't exactly any Einsteins in here"-and being greeted by howls of laughter.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" is arguably the most flawed statement in the constitution, and has caused a lot of problems, due to the inherent fact that it was, on the face of it, somewhat short-sighted. When it was first written, this was an entirely Christian nation, but of multiple denominations. The clause was meant to insure, simply, that no single one of these Christian denominations would ever be granted status as THE state religion. It was an attempt to insure there would never be a "Church of America" that would predominate and potentially oppress other Christian denominations.
Thus, if you were a Catholic, or a Baptist, etc., the government could not, on behalf of any other denomination, prohibit your freedom to exercise your religious beliefs-in public or in private. Nor could it prohibit any church or denomination from meeting, holding services, taking tithes, or proselytizing, or from performing any other generally understood and accepted function of a religious denomination.
That was the whole extent of it, and it applied solely to the limits of the power of the federal government over this matter, as indeed was and is the case with all of the Bill of Rights. With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, these restrictions were further extended to the states in regards to the rights of its individual private citizens, or in the case of this amendment, religious organizations.
But nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" occur. This was a phrase first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in the way of explaining one aspect of the clause, to wit, that the government could not interfere with their rights.
Of course, things have changed in ways the founders could not have envisioned. Now we have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Pagans, and the clause now also applies to any of them to the extent that they are American citizens. Neither the state of Kentucky nor the federal government, nor my present hometown, has no more of a legitimate right to prevent me from participating in public rituals, or conducting my own private ones, than it does to prohibit Catholics from performing devotions to the Blessed Virgin, or to prevent Jews from conducting the next Passover celebration.
Naturally, there has been some chipping around the margins of religious expressions due to the unexpected influx of religions from then foreign cultures. As such, laws against polygamy have come into play, advocacy for women's rights and the protection of children have become predominant over the rights of religious expression, when those things have the potential to come into conflict. Other than these kinds of exceptions, however, owing solely to the extent they do come into conflict with the laws of society, government has no legitimate right to limit, restrict, or to ban religious expression, of any faith, whether it pertain to the majority Christian, or to the smallest minority sect.
Ironically, the same people that loudly trumpet the first part of the clause-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion-seem to conveniently gloss over the corresponding portion-nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives government the right to prohibit religious expression, either on public or on private property, and it most certainly does not require, or even suggest, that the government should have the right to restrict legitimate religious expression or practice of Christian denominations for the presumed protection or other benefits of minority faiths. To imagine or to proffer that it does is turning the entire spirit of the First Amendment completely on its head. It does the exact opposite, in fact.
Not only does it prohibit such restrictions on religious expression, it actually encourages religious expressions and beliefs, of all religions. Religious expression in this country has always been a tradition. It was never restricted by the government, nor even within the government. The founders intent was quite plain on all these matters. Separation of church and state, when viewed in this context, is clearly a misnomer, and that was Christine O'Donnell's point. Separation of church and state has been used as a battering ram in order to minimize the extent of public expressions of religion. In some cases it has been used as an excuse to outright ban such religious expressions, which is not only turning the constitution on its head, its actually turning it into the very opposite of its original intent.
There is no legitimate right for the government, whether it be federal, state, or local government, to ban religious expression. In fact, it has the obligation to not do this, just as it has the further obligation to refrain from promoting or imposing a specific religious doctrine. That's the extent of it.
Again, that's what Christine O'Donnell was saying, and she was one hundred percent correct. The fact that law students in a university setting would find humor and presumably reason for derision in her remarks should give us all cause for concern. It's really quite sad, but of course, there is a political component to this.
Her opponent, Chris Coons, did not know the First Amendment as well as she did, and this is demonstrable, though of course you do not see this fact discussed by leftist bloggers and pundits. But the proof of this is a matter of public record.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said
The fact remains, no one has a legitimate reason to think that the establishment clause presupposes that no religious expression should ever be permitted in a public setting, whether such expressions are made by private citizens or by (gasp) public officials.
In fact, the right to free and open expression of religion is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, and applies to all American citizens, of any and all faiths. That obligation in itself would seem to make it quite impossible for there to be "separation of church and state"-certainly to the extent that such a doctrine is defined by the left.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
It Has Been Prophesied
A national Muslim civil rights and advocacy group is calling on the FBI to investigate a message written in bacon at mosque in Florence.
Three chair members of the Islamic Center in Florence discovered the words "pig" and "chump" written in strips of bacon on the walkway along the mosque Sunday afternoon.
Mushtaq Hussain was one of the members who discovered the message after concluding a prayer gathering. He initially thought the message was a practical joke.
"Then later on, we thought seriously and we thought, ‘You know, somebody doesn't like us,'" he said.
No shit Sherlock. Who would ever imagine that people in such a laid-back, easy going state as South Carolina would harbor malicious intentions towards Muslims? Granted there might be a few hotheads anywhere that might feel badly towards them, but they are doubtless a minority. Rumor has it that any day now Alvin Greene is going to hold a press conference and blame James DeMint.
Personally, though, I wonder if it might actually be the work of a little known group of cultists, who indeed have a very jealous, vengeful god. A God who demands that no other God should come before him, and who demands the utmost loyalty and devotion. I'm talking about this guy-
You will bow down before us, Muslim infidels, and worship the great God of Materialism. You will partake of the Holy Swine Flesh. We can afford to wait. We can afford to be patient. It is only a matter of time.
Mwahahahahaaaaaaa
Three chair members of the Islamic Center in Florence discovered the words "pig" and "chump" written in strips of bacon on the walkway along the mosque Sunday afternoon.
Mushtaq Hussain was one of the members who discovered the message after concluding a prayer gathering. He initially thought the message was a practical joke.
"Then later on, we thought seriously and we thought, ‘You know, somebody doesn't like us,'" he said.
No shit Sherlock. Who would ever imagine that people in such a laid-back, easy going state as South Carolina would harbor malicious intentions towards Muslims? Granted there might be a few hotheads anywhere that might feel badly towards them, but they are doubtless a minority. Rumor has it that any day now Alvin Greene is going to hold a press conference and blame James DeMint.
Personally, though, I wonder if it might actually be the work of a little known group of cultists, who indeed have a very jealous, vengeful god. A God who demands that no other God should come before him, and who demands the utmost loyalty and devotion. I'm talking about this guy-
You will bow down before us, Muslim infidels, and worship the great God of Materialism. You will partake of the Holy Swine Flesh. We can afford to wait. We can afford to be patient. It is only a matter of time.
Mwahahahahaaaaaaa
Monday, October 18, 2010
Barney Frank Going Down
Yeah I know that post title makes me an awful person, and its really not original, but bear with me as I explain just how clever the title really is. For you see, Barney Frank is indeed going down in at least two different ways, and maybe even three.
Granted, the first one is an assumption as to his own personal peccadilloes, but lets assume its a given that he has, maybe is at any given time, and at some point in the future is likely to go down. I wouldn't care about that, except for the simple obvious fact that it is not only a reflection of who Barney Frank is and the kind of person he is-it has affected his overall judgment and defines his ethics as a member of the House of Representatives, a position he has held for going on thirty years.
As the first openly gay member of Congress, Frank came close to being kicked out of the House for engaging in an affair with a male prostitute named Steve Gobi, who ran a brothel out of the basement of Frank's Washington home. Frank got out of a jam over the affair by simply feigning ignorance, but there was no denying the myriads of strings he pulled on behalf of his then male lover, running the gamut from fixing parking tickets (more than thirty of them) to interceding on his behalf with the man's probation officer.
Only in the Democratic Party could an office-holder parlay such a history into power as a committee chairman, but in Franks case, his ultimate triumph over adversity seems to have paved the way for what has followed since. Over time, he eventually became Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
By the time of the advent of the Clinton presidency, Frank had begun a relationship with a man named Herb Moses, who was a high-powered executive of Fannie Mae, a company that, along with Freddie Mac, Frank had a good deal of influence over. He interceded on their behalf numerous times throughout both the Clinton and Bush eras, and though his relationship ended in the late nineties, Frank still maintained close connections to the company, in addition to Freddie Mac, and received a great amount of money from them in the way of campaign donations, even though Frank's committee was charged with overseeing both of these companies.
Yet all the while, Frank was at the forefront of resisting any calls to more closely regulate and monitor the two companies activities, insisting that they had no problems that warranted any undue federal oversight over and above what was already established.
In effect, Frank not only set the stage for the housing bubble and subsequent crash that followed, he was to all practical intents and purposes, one of the main architects of the disaster.
Let's be clear about this-Frank was not the lone offender here, but he was certainly one of the most powerful and influential members of Congress involved in the debacle. Even former President Clinton said as much.
That Frank's action's leading to the collapse of the housing market are criminal, and actionable, is almost beyond dispute, and he knows it. Which would probably explain his unusual actions over the last few weeks. He has so far engaged in five debates with his opponent, Sean Bielat, who has actually raised more money than Frank in the last three weeks. Ordinarily, Frank would not be concerned enough to engage in more than maybe one obligatory show debate, if that, but five?
Even though Bielat more than likely will not defeat Frank, who typically wins re-election by well over twenty-five percentage points, he may well do enough to register as a decent opponent. I would not be surprised if he were defeated by a mere five or six points. But I am not getting my hopes up too greatly that he will win, and I find it hard to believe that Frank is inordinately worried about such a prospect.
But, Frank is worried about something.
In one debate, it came out that Frank and his current boyfriend were flown by jet to a island resort owned by a man big in the securities market, which of course Frank's committee is supposed to oversee. Of course he denied a conflict of interest, but the story is now out at any rate.
Then, in what has to be one of the most bizarre incidents of this or any campaign season (and that's really saying something) Sean Bielat, in the course of a local interview, was verbally harassed by a man holding a camera to his face who told him "you're not funny".
The man turned out to be-Barney Frank's boyfriend.
Below is a video of the incident.
Such behavior can only mean one thing. Frank knows that, even if he does win re-election, he is going to be returning to a house with an entirely different made-up from the one he knows now. He's not merely going to be a minority member of a House of Representatives with an overwhelming Republican majority, but many of those members are going to be Tea-Party Republicans-and they are going to be out for blood. And Barney Frank is already saddled with, ironically, a great big target on his ass.
For now, the least he can do-really the only thing he can do-is try to get out in front of it while he has a chance, try to make his case and possibly set up some kind of way out. Right now, I can't think of any other reason for this kind of oddball public behavior.
Despite these and whatever other desperate tactics he might try to cover his ass, or to excuse his past actions, he could very well, and more than likely will, find himself the object of a House Ethics investigation that in all likelihood will lead to his censure, possibly his expulsion from the House, and maybe even a prosecution somewhere down the line.
So yes, indeed, Barney Frank could very well go down, and maybe even spend the remainder of his years in prison orange, an old queen in a cell of his own making.
But hey-this is Barney Frank. I'm sure he'll figure out a way, as usual, to make the best of a bad situation.
Granted, the first one is an assumption as to his own personal peccadilloes, but lets assume its a given that he has, maybe is at any given time, and at some point in the future is likely to go down. I wouldn't care about that, except for the simple obvious fact that it is not only a reflection of who Barney Frank is and the kind of person he is-it has affected his overall judgment and defines his ethics as a member of the House of Representatives, a position he has held for going on thirty years.
As the first openly gay member of Congress, Frank came close to being kicked out of the House for engaging in an affair with a male prostitute named Steve Gobi, who ran a brothel out of the basement of Frank's Washington home. Frank got out of a jam over the affair by simply feigning ignorance, but there was no denying the myriads of strings he pulled on behalf of his then male lover, running the gamut from fixing parking tickets (more than thirty of them) to interceding on his behalf with the man's probation officer.
Only in the Democratic Party could an office-holder parlay such a history into power as a committee chairman, but in Franks case, his ultimate triumph over adversity seems to have paved the way for what has followed since. Over time, he eventually became Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
By the time of the advent of the Clinton presidency, Frank had begun a relationship with a man named Herb Moses, who was a high-powered executive of Fannie Mae, a company that, along with Freddie Mac, Frank had a good deal of influence over. He interceded on their behalf numerous times throughout both the Clinton and Bush eras, and though his relationship ended in the late nineties, Frank still maintained close connections to the company, in addition to Freddie Mac, and received a great amount of money from them in the way of campaign donations, even though Frank's committee was charged with overseeing both of these companies.
Yet all the while, Frank was at the forefront of resisting any calls to more closely regulate and monitor the two companies activities, insisting that they had no problems that warranted any undue federal oversight over and above what was already established.
In effect, Frank not only set the stage for the housing bubble and subsequent crash that followed, he was to all practical intents and purposes, one of the main architects of the disaster.
Let's be clear about this-Frank was not the lone offender here, but he was certainly one of the most powerful and influential members of Congress involved in the debacle. Even former President Clinton said as much.
That Frank's action's leading to the collapse of the housing market are criminal, and actionable, is almost beyond dispute, and he knows it. Which would probably explain his unusual actions over the last few weeks. He has so far engaged in five debates with his opponent, Sean Bielat, who has actually raised more money than Frank in the last three weeks. Ordinarily, Frank would not be concerned enough to engage in more than maybe one obligatory show debate, if that, but five?
Even though Bielat more than likely will not defeat Frank, who typically wins re-election by well over twenty-five percentage points, he may well do enough to register as a decent opponent. I would not be surprised if he were defeated by a mere five or six points. But I am not getting my hopes up too greatly that he will win, and I find it hard to believe that Frank is inordinately worried about such a prospect.
But, Frank is worried about something.
In one debate, it came out that Frank and his current boyfriend were flown by jet to a island resort owned by a man big in the securities market, which of course Frank's committee is supposed to oversee. Of course he denied a conflict of interest, but the story is now out at any rate.
Then, in what has to be one of the most bizarre incidents of this or any campaign season (and that's really saying something) Sean Bielat, in the course of a local interview, was verbally harassed by a man holding a camera to his face who told him "you're not funny".
The man turned out to be-Barney Frank's boyfriend.
Below is a video of the incident.
Such behavior can only mean one thing. Frank knows that, even if he does win re-election, he is going to be returning to a house with an entirely different made-up from the one he knows now. He's not merely going to be a minority member of a House of Representatives with an overwhelming Republican majority, but many of those members are going to be Tea-Party Republicans-and they are going to be out for blood. And Barney Frank is already saddled with, ironically, a great big target on his ass.
For now, the least he can do-really the only thing he can do-is try to get out in front of it while he has a chance, try to make his case and possibly set up some kind of way out. Right now, I can't think of any other reason for this kind of oddball public behavior.
Despite these and whatever other desperate tactics he might try to cover his ass, or to excuse his past actions, he could very well, and more than likely will, find himself the object of a House Ethics investigation that in all likelihood will lead to his censure, possibly his expulsion from the House, and maybe even a prosecution somewhere down the line.
So yes, indeed, Barney Frank could very well go down, and maybe even spend the remainder of his years in prison orange, an old queen in a cell of his own making.
But hey-this is Barney Frank. I'm sure he'll figure out a way, as usual, to make the best of a bad situation.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Rand Paul-Pride And Petulance
Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for the Senate, debated tonight with his opponent, Democratic candidate Attorney General Jack Conway. Although I have endorsed Paul, and continue to do so, I have to admit, he did not acquit himself well tonight. Oh, for the most part, it was the typical debate, the kind that would change no one's mind, the kind geared towards winning over the relative handful of undecideds. Unfortunately, if those undecideds end up deciding the race, I am afraid Paul is in trouble.
This is due mainly to his response to one charge leveled by Conway early in the debate, a charge that has been the subject of a recent attack ad leveled against Paul. He supposedly while in college belonged to a secret society which ridiculed Christianity and the Bible. Additionally, he allegedly at one point tied a woman up and forced her to bow down to his god, which Conway described as a "false idol" named "Aqua Buddha".
Paul denied the charge, lambasting Conway for leveling untrue charges from his college days thirty years ago. I can see why. If there is any truth at all to the charge, Paul knows it would not exactly play well in conservative Kentucky. But if it is true, he should own up to it.
My guess-if there is anything to this story, it probably involves not so much a serious religious belief as a secret society, Skull-And-Bones type ritual initiation.
The name of the woman involved in the charge was never given (Paul referred to her as an anonymous accuser), but if it really happened I suspect she was a part of the ritual and the words attributed to her have been edited and taken completely out of context.
Still, Paul knows what is at stake here, and can't take the chance this late in the game, when most polls put the race at too close to call, with Paul holding a slim lead just within the margin of error.
There were other things, other charges, leveled against both candidates, and they both did a good job of answering them, despite the unmistakable hint of political snake-oil that pervaded the overall atmosphere coming from both camps.
Notably, charges that Paul wished to impose a two-thousand dollar Medicare deductible (which he has been recorded saying numerous times), as well as the charge that he did not take Kentucky's drug problem with sufficient seriousness. The charge that he wants to dismantle the Department of Education, mining safety rules, even Social Security, etc., were all par for the course insofar as charges typically leveled against conservative Republicans and especially Tea-Party favorites such as Paul. Paul did an adequate job of defending himself from these accusations, for the most part, while pointing out that under Attorney General Conway's watch, meth labs and drug related crimes were on the rise. At one point, he even suggested Conway return his salary for the month of September due to his absence from the state to raise mo0ney for his campaign, citing alleged meetings with Nancy Pelosi in California.
Conway responded that it was Paul who derived the majority of his campaign contributions from outside the state.
The most notable charges against Conway were that he accepted donations from utility companies, who have lately raised their rates, and that he supported Obama's agenda in full, especially Obamacare, which he refused to challenge in the courts at the side of various other states Attorney's General that have done so.
Conway scored one major point in his own defense, however. He claims to have challenged the EPA in court when it tried to impose Cap And Trade. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it might be enough to sway some independents in its own right. It certainly is strange however that I was not aware of it.
Overall, however, the night ended on a sour note, when Paul in his closing statement declared that he would not shake hands with Conway, due to his accusations and slurs against his faith-making sure at the end the audience understood that he and his wife were Christians. At the very end, he all but stormed off the stage, past Conway, who just stood there.
Paul might have thought this was a matter of principle, but it looked more to me like a matter of petulance.
I still hope he wins, and I think he will still pull it out, but if he does not, you can trace his downfall to his performance this night.
This is due mainly to his response to one charge leveled by Conway early in the debate, a charge that has been the subject of a recent attack ad leveled against Paul. He supposedly while in college belonged to a secret society which ridiculed Christianity and the Bible. Additionally, he allegedly at one point tied a woman up and forced her to bow down to his god, which Conway described as a "false idol" named "Aqua Buddha".
Paul denied the charge, lambasting Conway for leveling untrue charges from his college days thirty years ago. I can see why. If there is any truth at all to the charge, Paul knows it would not exactly play well in conservative Kentucky. But if it is true, he should own up to it.
My guess-if there is anything to this story, it probably involves not so much a serious religious belief as a secret society, Skull-And-Bones type ritual initiation.
The name of the woman involved in the charge was never given (Paul referred to her as an anonymous accuser), but if it really happened I suspect she was a part of the ritual and the words attributed to her have been edited and taken completely out of context.
Still, Paul knows what is at stake here, and can't take the chance this late in the game, when most polls put the race at too close to call, with Paul holding a slim lead just within the margin of error.
There were other things, other charges, leveled against both candidates, and they both did a good job of answering them, despite the unmistakable hint of political snake-oil that pervaded the overall atmosphere coming from both camps.
Notably, charges that Paul wished to impose a two-thousand dollar Medicare deductible (which he has been recorded saying numerous times), as well as the charge that he did not take Kentucky's drug problem with sufficient seriousness. The charge that he wants to dismantle the Department of Education, mining safety rules, even Social Security, etc., were all par for the course insofar as charges typically leveled against conservative Republicans and especially Tea-Party favorites such as Paul. Paul did an adequate job of defending himself from these accusations, for the most part, while pointing out that under Attorney General Conway's watch, meth labs and drug related crimes were on the rise. At one point, he even suggested Conway return his salary for the month of September due to his absence from the state to raise mo0ney for his campaign, citing alleged meetings with Nancy Pelosi in California.
Conway responded that it was Paul who derived the majority of his campaign contributions from outside the state.
The most notable charges against Conway were that he accepted donations from utility companies, who have lately raised their rates, and that he supported Obama's agenda in full, especially Obamacare, which he refused to challenge in the courts at the side of various other states Attorney's General that have done so.
Conway scored one major point in his own defense, however. He claims to have challenged the EPA in court when it tried to impose Cap And Trade. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it might be enough to sway some independents in its own right. It certainly is strange however that I was not aware of it.
Overall, however, the night ended on a sour note, when Paul in his closing statement declared that he would not shake hands with Conway, due to his accusations and slurs against his faith-making sure at the end the audience understood that he and his wife were Christians. At the very end, he all but stormed off the stage, past Conway, who just stood there.
Paul might have thought this was a matter of principle, but it looked more to me like a matter of petulance.
I still hope he wins, and I think he will still pull it out, but if he does not, you can trace his downfall to his performance this night.
Code Pink-Their Mission Was Clear
Code Pink was out in the open insofar as their goals in Iraq, and everyone in Congress knew about it, or should have known. That would especially include Congressmen like Henry Waxman, whose district many Code Pink members called home. Yet, Wzxman, through his office, denied any knowledge of the true extent of Code Pink's activities in Iraq.
In September 2004, Code Pink participated in and endorsed the Beirut communique, which supported “the right of the people of Iraq and Palestine to resist the occupations” and called for “the unconditional withdrawal of US and “coalition” forces from Iraq.”
Waxman was not the only Democrat to send a letter for Code Pink’s ‘Fallujah aid’. According to a report by Islam Online published January 4, 2005, (and mysteriously removed this past week) diplomatic letters were also provided to Code Pink/Global Exchange by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH).
Big Government first reported about the letters last year in an expose about the ties between Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama. Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson wrote last Friday at Big Peace about Waxman’s letter.
In 2009, Democrats Sen. John Kerry (MA) and Rep. Sonny Carson (IN) provided similar letters for Code Pink’s delivery of aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Where to begin? Powerful members of the House and Senate, including a former presidential candidate, colluding with internal domestic enemies of the nation engaging in the treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to not just any enemy, but an enemy insurgency (which Code Pink referred to repeatedly as "freedom fighters") that was engaged in the process of attacking and killing American soldiers on the field of battle.
As aptly demonstrated, Code Pink made no secret of their beliefs and their objectives in making the trip.
If this was Talk Like A Pirate Day I would say "AAARRRGGGHHH Hang 'Em From The Highest Yardarm!"
But since its not Talk Like A Pirate Day, I'll just keep it simple and succinct-
Hang the miserable bastards.
In September 2004, Code Pink participated in and endorsed the Beirut communique, which supported “the right of the people of Iraq and Palestine to resist the occupations” and called for “the unconditional withdrawal of US and “coalition” forces from Iraq.”
Waxman was not the only Democrat to send a letter for Code Pink’s ‘Fallujah aid’. According to a report by Islam Online published January 4, 2005, (and mysteriously removed this past week) diplomatic letters were also provided to Code Pink/Global Exchange by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH).
Big Government first reported about the letters last year in an expose about the ties between Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama. Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson wrote last Friday at Big Peace about Waxman’s letter.
In 2009, Democrats Sen. John Kerry (MA) and Rep. Sonny Carson (IN) provided similar letters for Code Pink’s delivery of aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Where to begin? Powerful members of the House and Senate, including a former presidential candidate, colluding with internal domestic enemies of the nation engaging in the treasonous act of giving aid and comfort to not just any enemy, but an enemy insurgency (which Code Pink referred to repeatedly as "freedom fighters") that was engaged in the process of attacking and killing American soldiers on the field of battle.
As aptly demonstrated, Code Pink made no secret of their beliefs and their objectives in making the trip.
If this was Talk Like A Pirate Day I would say "AAARRRGGGHHH Hang 'Em From The Highest Yardarm!"
But since its not Talk Like A Pirate Day, I'll just keep it simple and succinct-
Hang the miserable bastards.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California)-Traitor
From Babalu
In December 2004 a group led by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, founders of Code Pink traveled from Amman, Jordan into Fallujah, Iraq to provide “humanitarian” supplies to Iraqi insurgents who, at that time, were fighting and killing American Marines. 51 Americans had been killed and 560 wounded in the US Marines’ heaviest urban combat since the Vietnam War at that time in Fallujah.
Code Pink, a radical leftist group that reviles American troops as terrorists and assassins while praising their enemies as freedom fighters, brought $600,000 in cash and supplies to enemies of the United States at the end of 2004, while war was fiercely waging. For years, Code Pink has viciously harassed wounded veterans and their families outside Walter Reed Hospital, even telling the mother of a slain Navy Seal that her son “deserved to die.” Code Pink actively supports terror groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
Who was this sole Senator that provided a letter of request for diplomatic courtesy to the US Embassy in Jordan to allow safe passage for the group organized by Code Pink to travel from Jordan into Iraq. None other than the leftist Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, who, it seems, will do anything for Benjamin, Evans and their leftist Code Pink group.
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
I don't know where to begin. It's one thing to give aid to displaced families who are war time refugees, but its something else again to give material support to the enemy, during a time of war, when our soldiers were at the time already facing severe hardships and many were sacrificing life and limb.
Of course, you look at groups like Code Pink, and you know that kind of thing is par for the course. It enrages me that they are not prosecuted for such activities. But then you look at the likes of Senator Barbara Boxer, and you see why. She is an enabler and a supporter in more ways than one. If anyone tried to prosecute this group, Boxer would be in their corner, protecting their fictitious rights to give aid and comfort to the enemy under the guise of rendering aid to victims of war.
But then, to go so far as to write a letter requesting diplomatic privilege to this group of low-lifes, actually puts her on the same level. Whatever Code Pink did in the course of this trip, Boxer might as well have been right there with them, in person.
And the really sad thing? She might actually be re-elected as the Senator from California. To be sure, she's in trouble, and she might very well lose, but the fact that the race is so close its impossible to make a clear prediction one way or another tells you all you need to know as to why California is in such sorry shape.
Is Fiorina, Boxer's opponent, a RINO? I don't know, but she probably is. That seems to be the only kind of Republican who has a shot of winning a statewide election in California. But at least she's probably not a traitorous cunt, so I hope she pulls it out. I do hold firm to my last endorsement of Governor Moonbeam over Meg Whitman. Yes, technically, I would hands down prefer Whitman to win. But I know enough to realize that if she does, she is going to have to deal with a California legislature that is predominantly Democrat, and they will fight her every step of the way. The only way she can get anything accomplished will be by compromising, which means California's problems will never be solved. At best, it would be like the effect of Vicadin on a raging cancer. It might deaden the pain, but the final result will be inevitable. And when it happens, any Republican in a position of power is going to take the lion's share of the blame in the public mind. Let the Moonbeam take that blame, while he and his lunatic legislature brings California to the point of fiscal destruction.
Fiorina though is a different kettle of fish. Even if she is a RINO she will caucus with the GOP in the Senate and I think she will avoid any tendencies to compromise unnecessarily, although I worry mightily about any potential Cap And Trade and Immigration bills and how she might come down on them. But we will just have to wait and see about that. There's no way at least that she would be as big a leftist loon as Boxer, who has already shown her traitorous stripes.
And while were on the subject of Code Pink and their past forays into traitorous infamy, I will go ahead and point out that Boxer was not their only treasonous enabler from within the halls of Congress.
Letters were also provided by Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).
Waxman of course is as vile a creature as ever drew breath, hut this surprised even me. Kucinich is a pure bred nutcase, so no surprises there. As for Grijalva, I just recently became aware of this creature, who is in trouble in his own bid for election to the House of Representatives from Arizona.
One reason for that might be that he, a House member representing a district in Arizona, encouraged a boycott, against-Arizona, his own freaking state.
Yet, he signs a letter encouraging diplomatic recognition for the Code Pink sojourn into Iraq during a time of war?
And liberal Democrats wonder why so many non-liberal Americans question their patriotism.
In December 2004 a group led by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, founders of Code Pink traveled from Amman, Jordan into Fallujah, Iraq to provide “humanitarian” supplies to Iraqi insurgents who, at that time, were fighting and killing American Marines. 51 Americans had been killed and 560 wounded in the US Marines’ heaviest urban combat since the Vietnam War at that time in Fallujah.
Code Pink, a radical leftist group that reviles American troops as terrorists and assassins while praising their enemies as freedom fighters, brought $600,000 in cash and supplies to enemies of the United States at the end of 2004, while war was fiercely waging. For years, Code Pink has viciously harassed wounded veterans and their families outside Walter Reed Hospital, even telling the mother of a slain Navy Seal that her son “deserved to die.” Code Pink actively supports terror groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
Who was this sole Senator that provided a letter of request for diplomatic courtesy to the US Embassy in Jordan to allow safe passage for the group organized by Code Pink to travel from Jordan into Iraq. None other than the leftist Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, who, it seems, will do anything for Benjamin, Evans and their leftist Code Pink group.
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
Members of Families for Peace, Code Pink and Global Exchange announce that they have sent 600,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the displaced people of Fallujah.(AFP/Khalil Mazraawi)
I don't know where to begin. It's one thing to give aid to displaced families who are war time refugees, but its something else again to give material support to the enemy, during a time of war, when our soldiers were at the time already facing severe hardships and many were sacrificing life and limb.
Of course, you look at groups like Code Pink, and you know that kind of thing is par for the course. It enrages me that they are not prosecuted for such activities. But then you look at the likes of Senator Barbara Boxer, and you see why. She is an enabler and a supporter in more ways than one. If anyone tried to prosecute this group, Boxer would be in their corner, protecting their fictitious rights to give aid and comfort to the enemy under the guise of rendering aid to victims of war.
But then, to go so far as to write a letter requesting diplomatic privilege to this group of low-lifes, actually puts her on the same level. Whatever Code Pink did in the course of this trip, Boxer might as well have been right there with them, in person.
And the really sad thing? She might actually be re-elected as the Senator from California. To be sure, she's in trouble, and she might very well lose, but the fact that the race is so close its impossible to make a clear prediction one way or another tells you all you need to know as to why California is in such sorry shape.
Is Fiorina, Boxer's opponent, a RINO? I don't know, but she probably is. That seems to be the only kind of Republican who has a shot of winning a statewide election in California. But at least she's probably not a traitorous cunt, so I hope she pulls it out. I do hold firm to my last endorsement of Governor Moonbeam over Meg Whitman. Yes, technically, I would hands down prefer Whitman to win. But I know enough to realize that if she does, she is going to have to deal with a California legislature that is predominantly Democrat, and they will fight her every step of the way. The only way she can get anything accomplished will be by compromising, which means California's problems will never be solved. At best, it would be like the effect of Vicadin on a raging cancer. It might deaden the pain, but the final result will be inevitable. And when it happens, any Republican in a position of power is going to take the lion's share of the blame in the public mind. Let the Moonbeam take that blame, while he and his lunatic legislature brings California to the point of fiscal destruction.
Fiorina though is a different kettle of fish. Even if she is a RINO she will caucus with the GOP in the Senate and I think she will avoid any tendencies to compromise unnecessarily, although I worry mightily about any potential Cap And Trade and Immigration bills and how she might come down on them. But we will just have to wait and see about that. There's no way at least that she would be as big a leftist loon as Boxer, who has already shown her traitorous stripes.
And while were on the subject of Code Pink and their past forays into traitorous infamy, I will go ahead and point out that Boxer was not their only treasonous enabler from within the halls of Congress.
Letters were also provided by Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).
Waxman of course is as vile a creature as ever drew breath, hut this surprised even me. Kucinich is a pure bred nutcase, so no surprises there. As for Grijalva, I just recently became aware of this creature, who is in trouble in his own bid for election to the House of Representatives from Arizona.
One reason for that might be that he, a House member representing a district in Arizona, encouraged a boycott, against-Arizona, his own freaking state.
Yet, he signs a letter encouraging diplomatic recognition for the Code Pink sojourn into Iraq during a time of war?
And liberal Democrats wonder why so many non-liberal Americans question their patriotism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)