The Camp Of The Saints

Archive

Newer | Older

Saturday, November 21, 2009

RULE 5 SATURDAY

The TCOTS Rule 5 Compliance Committee, having trouble deciding who to feature in this week's showcase, consulted with Mrs. Belvedere. The lovely and charming wife of the humble owner of this site was actually our first choice to be featured, but she modestly declined. So, the internet is the lesser for her decision. However, this beauty of beauties more than compensated us with her top notch suggestion for which great gal should be so honored. The dame she has chosen puts the class in classy, the thrill in thrilling, the pepper in spicy, and the sex in sexual. She's cavorted with the best of gentlemen and the coolest of swingers. Like a fine wine, she has aged to perfection. She's shown us her tough side and her heart of gold. Without further adieu, it is with great pleasure that The Committee presents....

ANGIE DICKINSON...

21 nov 09 @ 7:43 pm est Comments

...AND IN BREAKING COSMETIC SURGERY NEWS:

From the iOwnTheWorld News Service, Big Fur Hat reporting, we learn that Nancy Pelosi's plastic surgery suffered a serious setback today after she experience an 'epic sneeze':

I don't think this is covered by Obamacare.

21 nov 09 @ 5:02 pm est Comments

THE SPOT-ON QUOTE OF THE WEEK

As this is the first week of the Palinpalozza Tour, it seems appropriate to award it to Bernie Goldberg for nailing it on The O'Reilly Factor:

When she was still on the ticket a disease broke out in liberal America- Palin Derangement Syndrome. But I don’t think Bill that they detest her simply because she’s a conservative woman, a pro-Life, pro-gun conservative woman. I think there’s something else that’s working here. Here’s a woman that didn’t go to Harvard, Yale or Princeton. She bounced around at a bunch of colleges before she wound up at the University of Idaho which is practically a crime against humanity among liberal elites. She has 5 kids. Liberals don’t have 5 kids. One of them has Down Syndrome, liberals certainly don’t allow that to happen… They detested her Bill, they detested her because she was so ordinary. Because she was like a Middle America. And you know what? The liberals and the lamestream media, that’s who they really detest.

[tip of the fedora to Gatewat Pundit who has the video here]

21 nov 09 @ 4:54 pm est Comments

TROUBLE IN MIND...AND I'M BLUE

Quin Hillyer is a troubled man: I don't mean to imply that he himself is suffering from some mental malady or anything like that. Rather, as a proud and grateful American, he is troubled by the direction the great ship USS United States is being steered by Captain Barry 'Titanic' Obama and his motley crew. In his latest installment of his weekly column, Streetcar Line, over at The American Spectator, he offers some insightful commentary on the troubling things that are encompassing us*. Two highlights:

The KSM Trial. Attorney Generally Corrupt Eric Holder thinks it is okay not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party hate group for voter intimidation, okay to send armed thugs to wave assault rifles in the face of six-year-old Cuban boys, okay to pardon Puerto Rican terrorists, okay to label his fellow Americans "a nation of cowards," okay to stonewall Congress on issue after issue, okay to pardon a wealthy fugitive from justice just because he has ties to President Clinton, okay to overrule Justice Department lawyers on issue after issue for political reasons. All that is bad enough. But mark my words: If the KSM trial goes badly in any way, Holder may well have blood on his hands. He's already the worst sort of political hack and race hustler; the KSM trial could make him a moral monster.

Does Barack Obama love the United States of America? I would welcome any evidence that he does. He could start by putting his hand over his heart at every playing of the National Anthem. Even that might be too much to ask of him, though.

Too true on both Quin, too true.

Please do take the time to click here and read the whole column and I would highly recommend checking-in every Thursday for the latest one: they're always enlightening and thought-provoking.

*I'm not surprised that this is happening after reading Revelation 20:7-9: '...Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth...to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the Camp of the Saints...and the Beloved City: and the fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them....'. Can't wait to watch the devouring.

21 nov 09 @ 4:45 pm est Comments

WHY CAN'T A WOMAN BE MORE LIKE A WOMAN

On Thursday, The American Spectator published a very good article by Christopher Orlet on the phenomenon that is growing of women trying to equal or outdo men behaving badly while intoxicated. It's no secret that men in the Anglosphere have taken bad behavior up many notches, but now young women and following suit. The evidence strongly suggests that this is one of the end results of the Feminist Movement, as Mr. Orlet explains:

It is mind-boggling how quickly centuries old traditions, mores, and manners fade away. Within one decade all of the old taboos that regulated and instructed the behavior of young, middle-class women have been swept away. In the late 1970s, when my older sister was in school, the female students policed the behavior of their fellow classmates, lest one bad girl give the entire school a "bad reputation." "Ten years ago, it was unacceptable for women to go out and get absolutely hammered," one ladette recently told a Canadian magazine. No more. If the moral policing of my sister's generation was extreme, we have today swung to the opposite extreme. Following a naked lap dance by a male stripper, another ladette waxed philosophically: "This is about equality. Men go out and have a good time. Why can't it be the same for women?"

I doubt if running drunkenly amok through the streets with one's panties round one's ankles is the sort of equality Susan B. Anthony had in mind when she began publishing The Revolution, but let it go. Likewise one British poll found that 78 percent of young women preferred their bachelorette or hen parties to be "loud, drunken and risqué." It is not enough to act the fool. Everyone -- whether he wants to or not -- must be witness to it.

There is a very simple-minded logic going on here. Young men do idiotic things, therefore in order to prove that I am no less idiotic than they are I must do the same. Only they do not consider their behavior idiotic. Certainly, the young lady parading through the city streets with her panties round her ankles and throwing up in the back alleys finds nothing wrong with her behavior. She is just having a good time. Like the guys.

Here you see the disaster that has been wrought by all of the women's study courses and all the peer pressure and all of the incessant [one might calling 'nagging'] propagandizing in the culture by the radical Feminists and their followers. Women, in order to feel 'equal' to men feel compelled to engage in obnoxious and indecent behaviour and deny themselves the joy and obligations of motherhood. Wow, what a victory you've achieved gals! I guess you're feeling quite fulfilled now, aren't you?

In his conclusion, Mr. Orlet clings to a not unjustified hope:

Anytime you try to make over society in its entirety there is bound to be a reaction. And while reactions are seldom beautiful things, they are wholly predictable. Our drink-besotted daughters parading half naked through the streets are, in a strange way, a reaction to emasculating feminism and political correctness. Fortunately, reactionary periods fade. And when it does let us hope that young women will stop emulating young men, or if they must, they emulate young men with some class.

I must disagree with the last part of his last sentence. I don't want women to even emulate men with any class: I don't want them to emulate men at all. Women should behave like women. They are the great civilizing force in the world. Do you think Western Civilization would have ever achieved the heights of civilization if it weren't for the influence of women? Men were necessary to fight the wars and bleed and die and do the grunt work necessary to bring about the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. They were the ones who tamed the land, tamed their fellow men and women, and helmed the great institutions that made The West the beacon of the world. But it was the influence of women that refined The West, that forced men to suppress their aggressive instincts, that forced them to behave so that there could be peaceful societies, that forced children to be valued more than as mere extra free hands.

I want women to be women. There is enough pain and sadness in life; women being women bring great relief to men from the tribulations they experience each and every day. And the same is just as true in the reverse. We complement each other.

21 nov 09 @ 4:05 pm est Comments

QUESTIONS WE CAN NO LONGER AVOID

In a posting over at The Other McCain this afternoon, after citing several recent examples, we get some very thought-provoking ruminations from Smitty:

People in positions of trust seem increasingly criminal in their approach to their tasks. Worse still, and this is the question I'm throwing out here, is the only remedy for honest people to engage in increasingly lawless behavior, with break-ins here and feigned criminal activity there, in order to support reform?

These were non-violent acts. One hopes that the reasonable, honest and sane can generate sufficient revolution at the ballot box to preclude worse.

This has been on my mind, as of late, as well. As I wrote yesterday in the final paragraph of my posting on Obamacare:

If we lose this battle, then we must work even harder to throw out each and every member of the Congress who voted for this power grab next year and neutralize the Executive. If we fail at those two things, then it would appear our only recourse will be, shall we say, a more 'active' resistance.

We may be facing many of the same choices that the Founding Fathers did. I think that each and everyone of us who loves America must be prepared for this scenario. One has to ask oneself: how far are you willing to go to preserve, protect, and defend the United States against all enemies domestic?

The Leftists in power seek nothing less than an overthrow of EVERYTHING America is and stands for. They want nothing less than to make everyone subservient and enslaved to their version of the state. And they are willing to do so by any means necessary. We have no choice now but to take the time and contemplate what we are willing to do, how far we are willing to go, as the situation gets worse. And signs indicate that it WILL get worse.

I had hoped that it would not come to this, that we would be forced to ponder such questions. But our hand has been forced because we let the cancer that is Leftism gain a solid foothold in America.

In the first sentence of his posting, Smitty asks: 'Are we moving into a new stage in the struggle for liberty?'

The answer appears to be a resounding 'YES!'.

The Founding Fathers warned us that everyone must pull guard duty in the fight to retain our freedoms and liberties. A final question: will you shirk your duty?

A final thought: How friggin' sad that it's come to this.

21 nov 09 @ 3:02 pm est Comments

THE LUNATIC IS IN MY HEAD

Greg Gutfeld now gets it: in his Greg-A-Logue from last night's Red Eye, he has this to say about the Left and the race-baiting tactic they employ frequently against the Right:

...I used to think this race-baiting tactic was a political ploy. But now I believe they mean it. They do think that if you're against the policies of Obama, you must be racist. And that's because in their profession, they don't know anyone who's against the policies of Obama! Surrounded by likeminded lackeys, they're convinced that everyone beyond the tinted windows of their black cars must be card-carrying members of the Aryan Book Club.

The real truth: Whether it's Norah O'Donnell or Chris Matthews - they're just too scared to question a black man over policy.

And that's authentic bigotry.

But what can you expect from a bunch of white people?

And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist.

The Left really does believe that we on the Right are afraid of minorities, and that we instinctively circle the white wagons whenever we feel threatened in the slightest way by their presence and/or influence in White World [tell it to Donald Douglas, Clifton B., or Clarence Thomas, et al—in fact, Tell It To The Marines—go on, I dare you Bolshes!]. I've studied Leftists and their thinking for over twenty-five years and I can say, without an ounce of fear of being refuted by any real evidence, that they have a very distorted view of the world that has very little connection to reality. Its as almost if they have some kind of brain damage that has caused all their neurons to fire incorrectly. They are, to put it simply, mutant.

As Mr. Gutfeld says, the Left are, indeed, the real bigots. But they are stealth bigots who constantly condescend to all minorities. That has got to really tick off any thinking and reasonable person who is the subject of their condescensions. Leftists are the descendants of the plantation owners.

And if you disagree with me, then you, sir, are a fascist!

21 nov 09 @ 2:18 pm est Comments

THE SPOT-ON QUOTE OF THE DAY...

...is awarded to Ran, over at Si Vis Pacem, for this perfect comparison of the great ship USS Constitution to its namesake [worth quoting in full]:

IF EVER America needed a metaphor to resilience and durability and intelligent strength, this boat is it. Frigate she is; 38 guns, broadside weight of metal 792 lbs. Yeah... she's still around, just like her namesake.

From the shores of Tripoli against barbarians 1804-07, to the open Atlantic against the British 1824-14, the men who sailed her distinguished themselves in naval history. Americans, too, are an amazingly resilient lot.

"USS CONSTITUTION is currently in a major three-year restoration process as she prepares for the Bicentennial of the War of 1812, in which Old Ironsides earned her now famous title and sealed her place in the history of American naval power."

As metaphors go! Yeah, we're on about restoring Old Ironsides, all right. From the first page to the First Amendment and onwards. There are a lot of barnacles and weed to scrape away and great gaping holes to be patched - nearly a century of predation by the Progressive cancer of statism.

I swore to Protect and Defend the Constitution, for it guards my Liberty. Not a day goes by that I do not give thanks to God for bringing me here to this land. 2010 is just around the headland, people. Beyond that 2012 may be the greatest battle Old Ironsides will ever see. I predict that she'll win again, so that we may begin her restoration.

Please do take the time to click here for some great links Ran provides.

It's Time To ROC 'N' ROLL:
Restore Our Constitution & Restore Our Lost Liberties

21 nov 09 @ 1:54 pm est Comments

Friday, November 20, 2009

I LOVE A GOOD ZING...

...and Dan Collins, over at Piece Of Work In Progress, has given us an extra special good one just in time for Turkey Day:

...I’m wondering whether Obama will pardon the White House turkey. Maybe he’ll ask Eric Holder to review the situation and make a recommendation based on the law. I have a recurring daydream where he finally decides on pardoning the turkey, only to find out it’s already been cooked.

ZING!

Well, Dan, he's just wants more options presented to him before he makes this important decision.

20 nov 09 @ 10:42 am est Comments

NARCISSIS IN THE ORIENT

When He was in South Korea recently, our Divine Emperor, Tiberius Obamacus, went to Osan Air Force base where he spoke before approximately 1,500 of our troops. From The Washington Post, Anne Kornblut reporting [emphasis mine]:

Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cellphones to snap pictures.

"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.

Paco is dead-solid-perfect:

Now this is a “truth” in the sense of being a very self-revelatory statement, a comment that unmasks the president’s attitude about practically everything: “It’s all about me.” Not the troops – certainly not the troops in Afghanistan – and not the ~~war~~ dragnet on terrorism. Sure, he made a few conciliatory remarks, thanking the troops for their service, and apparently drawing cheers when he promised to increase military pay. But the photo op quip pretty much sums up his perception of the value of the U.S. military: the troops are simply a nice prop in support of his title of Commander-in-Chief.

The Roman Emperors of old were known for appearing at The Senate surrounded by the Praetorian Guard to send the message: 'Defy me and you'll have to answer to these guys'. Since our Fearless Leader despises the American military and all they stand for, he, so far, is content to use them as mere props to shore-up his C-in-C bona fides. [And let us not forget he is the greatest Leader/Writer since Julius Caesar.]

20 nov 09 @ 10:34 am est Comments

ABDICATION

When we blame the troubles we are in on the elected official in Washington and in our state houses, we are rightly targeting those who are part of the problem. However, they are only part of the problem, as Monique Stuart* reminds us:

I wonder when the public is going to start holding itself responsible. It’s such an abdication of our responsibilities to pretend that these politicians are uncontrollable or unstoppable when it is the public that puts them into office and hands over their power. Too “busy” to be bothered with the decisions that will alter their lives, they vote in whatever scumbag promises them the most.

I have said it too many times to count on this blog: if the public wants things to change in Washington it is up to them to change it. Normal citizens need to run for office on whatever ticket they can, independent if they have to, and give these power-hungry pols a run for their money. It was never supposed to be like this. Read our founding documents. It was never supposed to be like this. It is we the people who have allowed it to get this far and it is only we the people who can stop it and take power back.

Ultimately, we have only ourselves to blame.

Repent, ye sinners, before its too late!

*Monique is so right on so many things that its a shame to see she cites Michael Jackson for inspiration in the posting I just quoted from and in another she says she'd marry metrosexual actor Johnny Depp if he were available. How about a real man HotMES? And how about using a real male musician as you inspiration? Jeez, Louise...I'm disappointed.

20 nov 09 @ 10:15 am est Comments

...AND I FEEL FINE

Since the world as we know it is going to end on 21 December 2012, about six weeks after Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected [and my Godchild/Niece's birthday (always knew she was evil)], I thought I would, between now and then, post what some of my Friends In The Ether are saying about the coming Apocalypse. And I thought I'd start off with a quote from someone who is very skeptical about the whole thing...

From over at Eye Of Polyphemus, Jamie Jeffords:

So the world is not going to end in 2012. At least not by any way the Mayans may have thought, assuming they ever did. It got me to thinking, though. The stories we would have to tell if we are killed in the apocalypse. It would go something like this:

GUY IN HEAVEN: Hey, bro. How did you die?

ME: In the freakin’ apocalypse, dude! It was awesome! The oceans started to boil. A seven headed dragon emerged from the water and ate New Jersey! The Earth cracked open, spewing fire and brimstone into the sky! Then these winged demons poured out and started poking me in the butt with a trident!

How did you die?

GUY IN HEAVEN: I ate some bad shellfish.

The whole point of life is to have cool stories to tell at the end.

And to be dressed well.

If it does happen, with my luck I know the Apocalypse will start just right before I get a million hits on this blog.

20 nov 09 @ 9:56 am est Comments

RUBBER, MEET ROAD

Senator Harry 'Kari' Reid has scheduled a 'test vote' on the Senate version of Obamacare for Saturday Night. As many have warned who have been following this issue, this has to be stopped. A passage of this monstrosity, will signal that we are going to get Obamacare despite the fact that the vast majority of the American people do not want it.

It will also mean that the government will now own our lives. Think about it: so many aspects of our lives can be connected to our health. The amount of hours you work. Driving. What and how often you eat. What you watch on television. And these are just a very few of the activities that, it can be argued, effect one's health. The definitions can be stretched like Silly Putty. If we allow the government to gain power over our health care then they will be given the power to set the rules for how we can live our lives [see: mammograms and prostate exams]. They will be in charge, be the bossman. Like parents, they will be able to punish us for not following the rules. Like executors of a trust fund, they will decide how services and monies are distributed. They will control the horizontal and the vertical. This naked totalitarian power grab must be stopped. Oh, and—a little fact this—ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

They have to be stopped. The trouble is, the vast majority of our 'representatives' in elected office DO NOT CARE what we think. In normal times, what with all of the opposition Obamacare has generated, this process would have never made it this far. Politicians are practical, if not very smart otherwise, and, if things were normal, they would realize that such intense opposition as would be generated by them acting as they currently are would more than likely spell their electoral doom.

But these are clearly not normal times.

We have to face the facts: the committed, radical Left has taken power in Washington, controlling the Legislative and Executive Branches, and they DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK. This is the nature of the Left—always has been, always will be. And they've been there for many years. However, up until now, they haven't been able to work openly to implement their schemes. The ascension of Barack Hussein Obama has given them license to openly act to implement their radical agenda, and they have not hesitated to do so. The only nod they make to normality is their use of tired old bromides that hide the true nature of what it actually is they seek to do [example here (tip of the fedora to Michelle Malkin)].

Every bit of pressure that can be applied must be applied to stop this fundamental transformation of America into a fascist state [see TERM #6]. For the passage of Obamacare is nothing less than that: the control of all that is privately held. And there is nothing more private than one's health.

The odds are against us in this. I think it highly likely we will be ignored and this evil measure will be passed and signed into law. But we must fight it because it is the right thing to do—we're the ones wearing the white hats in this gunfight. We have an obligation to do the right thing for the sake of all freedom-loving people who look to us as a beacon of reason in a troubled world, for the sake of the Founders who pledged their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to win us our Legacy, and for the sake of the future generations young and yet to be born who deserve to breathe free.

If we lose this battle, then we must work even harder to throw out each and every member of the Congress who voted for this power grab next year and neutralize the Executive. If we fail at those two things, then it would appear our only recourse will be, shall we say, a more 'active' resistance.

For the best coverage on the Obamacare debate, don't forget to keep checking-in with Pat Austin and Pundette.

-Americans For Tax Reform has some great links [here] to information related to the Obamacare bills and a very useful list of the taxes that will be imposed by the Reidcare version.

20 nov 09 @ 8:08 am est Comments

Thursday, November 19, 2009

HOLDER ON THERE A MINUTE!

As you may know, Attorney General Eric Holder went before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday and had rather a tough time of it. I think we can all sympathize with his plight as he was trying to defend the indefensible: trying Jihadists in civilian courts...then again, since it was his decision, screw the sympathy.

Over at The Corner, the great Andrew McCarthy has published a number of postings on the events of yesterday that are very much worth one's time. As of this posting he's done ten. In order: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. If you want to check out of he's done anymore, here's a search link for his writings over at NRO, sorted latest first.

In the seventh one, Mr. McCarthy produces part of the exchange between Senator Kyl and the AG, wherein the Senator quote from am article by Mr. Mr. McCarthy. In AG Holder's response, he ends with 'I'm not worried about Mr. McCarthy'. Good, let the enemy underestimate their foe, I say. All I know is: in any legal battle [and probably in any other type of battle] I would want Andrew McCarthy on my side.

Michelle Malkin has published as excerpt from her book Culture Of Corruption that looks at Eric Holder's conflicts of interest in dealing with Jihadists. From the introduction to the excerpt:

If you’ve been paying attention, you already know all about AG Eric Holder and his DOJ staff’s national security conflict of interest as senior partner with Covington & Burling — the prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo.

I first mentioned it here in January and spotlighted the problem in chapter 4 of Culture of Corruption.

In fact, Holder and Covington & Burling have a lucrative niche in terrorist representation.

I’m reprinting the relevant section from Culture of Corruption so you have it at your fingertips. All of this was known before Holder was confirmed as AG, which, as I’ve pointed out before, makes it all the more inexplicable that 19 Republican senators— Alexander (R-TN); Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Chambliss (R-Ga); Collins (R-ME); Corker (R-TN); Graham (R-SC); Grassley (R-IA); Gregg (R-NH); Hatch (R-UT); Isakson (R-GA;) Kyl (R-AZ); Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ); Murkowski (R-AK); Sessions (R-AL); Snowe (R-ME); Specter (R-PA); and Voinovich (R-OH) — cast their votes for him. Now, they are reaping what they helped sow.

Please do take the time to click here and read the whole excerpt.

19 nov 09 @ 2:26 pm est Comments

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU LYFAO

Number 1) “I’m getting tired of saving Obama’s can in the White House,” [Rep. John] Conyers said on the liberal Bill Press radio show.

Number 2) "No. 1, I think that we've restored America's standing in the world,'' Obama said.

Both quotes thanks to the Gateway Pundit.

19 nov 09 @ 2:03 pm est Comments

TOO CUTE BY HALF

Yesterday I published a posting about the recommendations of the U.S Preventive Services Task Force that women not get mammograms until they are fifty, that they not self-exam their breasts, and that ladies over the age of seventy-four do neither. There's been such a [well-justified] uproar over this that Health And Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had to do some quick damage control:

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, meanwhile, told women to ignore the new advisory recommendations for now.

"The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientistswho make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government," said Sebelius in a written statement.

"Our policies remain unchanged," she said of the federal government. " Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

The always insightful Moe Lane is rightly skeptical:

A statement that is very comforting… until you remember that the Democratic party’s goal is to establish governmental control over the health care insurance industry. Who here thinks that an insurance company already grimly aware that they exist on governmental sufferance might feel the need to ‘change its mammography coverage decisions’ to reflect current state medical policy? Particularly if there are consequences for not being in compliance with all the laws, regulations, rulings, and opinions that bureaucracies generate more or less automatically....

I wouldn't put anything past these sneaky bastards [and that's insulting the bastards].

I can say this enough times: This is why Obamacare must be defeated and never passed: literally, our lives depend on it.

19 nov 09 @ 11:33 am est Comments

TOO TRUE

Yesterday's Toby Toons nails it:

19 nov 09 @ 10:56 am est Comments

HAIL TO THE ME

Bookworm has an interesting take on our Narcissist-In-Chief over at her site, Bookworm Room. and believes its not hard to predict how he will act on any issue. A highlight:

Obama’s little brain says “Everyone can see I’m a genius. Everyone can see I’m a genius.” The problem with that definition, of course, is that it’s unanchored to moral beliefs or values or guiding principles or anything else decent and internalized. It’s a standard measured only by other people’s praise. The problem with this external measurement, of course, is that if you make a mistake the praise goes away. Narcissists cannot afford mistakes. And the best way to avoid a mistake is not to make a decision. And there you have it. Obama is being tested, and he cannot afford, because of his own self-image, to make a decision that might be wrong. So he does nothing at all, while the Taliban burnishes its strength, and our troops die.

It is well worth reading. I especially like her last line, which is dead, solid, perfect:

All Obama has is a scarily impassive arrogance that may yet be the death of us.

Too true.

[tip of the fedora to Robert Avrech]

19 nov 09 @ 10:31 am est Comments

USEFUL IDIOTS

The Stealth Jihadists in America have scored another victory. From Pam Geller, we learn:

Apostate Nonie Darwish, author of “Cruel And Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law”. and executive director, Former Muslims United, was scheduled to speak at Columbia University today and Princeton University tomorrow, and both events were canceled.

Columbia, where Ahmadinejad was welcomed like a returning king.

In case you are unaware of who Miss Darwish is, Pam gives us a good summary:

Nonie Darwish ...is an Egyptian-American human rights activist, writer, scholar of Islam and founder of Arabs For Israel. She is the author of two books: Now They Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror and Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish's speech topics cover human rights, with emphasis on women's rights and minority rights in the Middle East. She is the director of Former Muslims United.

Born in Egypt, Darwish is the daughter of an Egyptian Army lieutenant general, who was called a "shahid" by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser,[4] after being killed in an Israeli raid. Darwish blames "the Middle Eastern Islamic culture and the propaganda of hatred taught to children from birth" for his death, which she describes as an "assassination". In 1978, she moved with her husband to the United States, and converted to Christianity there. After September 11, 2001 she has written on Islam-related topics.

Both universities cited 'security risks' for the cancellations [see an article by a Columbia student here].

In light of the massacre at Fort Hood by a Jihadist, this is outrageous. The Useful Idiots in academia are ultimately cutting their own throats by giving into pressures from Muslim groups who want to silence those who are sounding the alarm about the dangers of Jihad. They remind me of the intellectuals in Jean Raspail's novel The Camp Of The Saints who welcome the invasion of the Third World into France with open arms only to be trampled to death. Wake up, so-called intelligent people.

19 nov 09 @ 9:56 am est Comments

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE LYN NOFZIGER?

Last night, Stacy McCain filed a report about Sara Palins appearance for a book signing in Grand Rapids. The main thrust of the posting was how well Mrs. Palin handled the questions directed at her by the press as she walked into the bookstore:

Notice that Palin is actually good at handling "random questions from the media," which goes back to the idiotic decision of Team Maverick to seal her inside a bubble during the campaign....

Stacy then laments:

Why GOP operatives try that stupid "hide the candidate" game, I don't know. It's supposed to be about "message discipline," but it always seems to backfire by turning the media against the candidate. My theory: Most GOP "media strategists" have never worked a day as a reporter, and thus can't see things from the reporter's perspective.

It's very difficult for reporters to cover a campaign if all they get are press releases, scripted speeches and statements from campaign staffers. If they never have a chance to get spontaneous fresh quotes from the candidate, reporters begin to resent the campaign they're covering and that resentment will inevitably come out in their coverage.

I think there were probably two main, overall reasons why they put Mrs. Palin in a bubble...

1) Professional handlers these days are obsessed with controlling their candidate's message. Now the Obama Campaign was able to get away with it because, to quote Bernard Goldberg, the press was having a 'slobbering love affair' with Barry O. Republicans rarely get that kind of love, so the 'control the message' thing backfires for the reasons Stacy lays out.

2) These professional and 'sophisticated' handlers determined immediately that Mrs. Palin was a backwoods hick, too dumb, obviously, to be on a national ticket, but, hey, the Boss chose her and we've got to live with her, so lets keep her from opening her mouth and damaging our chances of getting cushy and lucrative jobs in the McCain Administration. Heck, even if we lose, THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER [AND HIRE] will admire how coolly we handled this dumb redneck from Nowheresville.

God save us from handlers like these. We have to to whatever it takes to keep them from invading the campaigns of the Hoffmans and Rubios of this world next year. We need more Lyn Nofzigers.

19 nov 09 @ 9:38 am est Comments

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

A LITTLE HUMP DAY RULE 5

ELIZABETH ASHLEY...

18 nov 09 @ 8:13 pm est Comments

DAILY KOS CAUGHT TRYING TO MAKE FALSE PALIN QUOTE GO VIRAL

Joshua Livestro, over at Conservatives4Palin, has uncovered a plot by Bob Johnson of the Daily Kos to have a false quote by Sarah Palin go viral. Mr. Livestro has the evidence safely secured in case they try to delete it. From Johnson's post, a lowlight:

By linking to the Politico story on Palin's appearance on Limbaugh's radio show, highlighted in Barb's post with this graph:

Palin painted the race as part of "a clearer and clearer picture that what Americans are seeking – even in a district there in New York – they are seeking common sense conservative solutions to all the problems that we are facing."

... and suggesting the fictional copy block, below, contains the full Palin quote, we will be giving Palin a dose of her own medicine. Most people will read the quote and believe Palin really did say something that inane. And I would love for her to have to refute it the same way she had to refute Tina Fey's "front porch" quote.

Please click here to see the full story over at C4P and read the fake quote [tip of the fedora to Stacy McCain].

Three big cheers for Joshua Livestro.

18 nov 09 @ 6:58 pm est Comments

THE PALINPALOOZA TOUR HITS THE ROAD

Sarah Palin has begun her book tour in Grand Rapids where people have been lining up since very early this morning to attend her book signing at 6 PM tonight, local time. I've been cruising through the Ether on a flying moose carpet that she shot and skinned herself to gather some of the best commentary on the Tour.

-Stacy McCain has some predictions for how the MSM will cover the Tour which bypasses the major liberal cities in favor of The Heartland:

First, expect the major national outlets (NBC, New York Times, etc.) to ignore this evidence of Palin's overwhelming popularity. They've been commissioning polls especially designed to show that Palin is unpopular, and they're not going to let facts get in their way.

Second, to the extent that the elite media take notice of the huge crowds at Palin events, expect them to focus obsessively over any tinfoil-hat crackpots who turn up. Time or Newsweek will send reporters out to these book-signings, and the reporters will interview scores of Palin fans until they find one or two conspiracy kooks who think Obama was born in Kenya or that 9/11 was an "inside job." And those will be the only Palin supporters quoted in the MSM stories.

Finally, expect the media to take the good-news-is-bad-news angle: If Palin is "bad news" for the GOP -- hey, Newsweek told you so! -- then the fact that she's drawing big crowds can only mean that the Republican Party is headed for oblivion, you see.

I think Stacy's hit a triple with this one.

-The elite insiders are especially angry as Stacy reported yesterday over at The American Spectator:

Monday afternoon, Rush Limbaugh pointed out the most evil, mean-spirited act Sarah Palin has ever committed: She didn't include an index in her new book, Going Rogue.

Elite journalists don't read political books, but instead skim the index to see if their names are mentioned, Limbaugh explained to his national radio audience. Therefore, Palin omitted the index to exact revenge on her tormentors by forcing them to read her book. To her liberal enemies, this was a deed as inhumane as her moose-hunting.

Quite. She has broken one of the golden rules of political book writing: you're supposed to supply the index as a courtesy so the MSM can get to the juicy parts without having to wade through what is usually dull text. Trouble is, from all reports, the two ladies who wrote it have turned in something that is not boring and boilerplate at all. I say: good for them if they did it on purpose.

Stacy also makes this spot-on observation:

What is it about Palin that sticks in the craw of liberal journalists? Perhaps the same thing that has always annoyed them about Rush Limbaugh: Sarah Palin doesn't need their help, and all their efforts to harm her appear impotent.

She's apparently learned a thing or two from The Raygun.

Please do take the time to click here and read the full report.

-GatorDoug thinks Mrs. Palin should hire Stacy in the future:

So, yes, McCain for Palin campaign manager in 2012! Isn't it about time we had a McCain who knew how to run a campaign?

Doug's based his opinion on this posting over at The Other McCain [which he quotes from, so please read it before you continue on] where he offers some very good advice on how she should have handled the Newsweek cover.

My advice is: I like Mrs. Palin a lot, but she's got to stop speaking in Leftspeak [ex: 'The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist...']. I think it imperative Stacy arrange to do an extensive interview with her and then question her on her premises. We need to know if her mind's been captured by the Leftist Mindset. She's been coming off like it hasn't, but this statement, along with a few others, raise some doubts. I, for one, don't want someone who's going to recite the same old Leftist bromides—I think we've had more than enough of that.

-The TrogloPundit has apparently read Going Rogue and has published The Top Ten Bombshells From Sarah Palin's Book over at Right Wing News. Here are a three of them:

8. She doesn’t really need glasses.

9. Todd is a cyborg from the future, waiting for the name Levi Johnston to appear in the phone book.

10. Her plan for total world domination is right on schedule.

Too bad Lance had to reveal #10; he had many years still ahead of him--not any more [I just got my orders].

As for #9: I knew it!....I knew it!

18 nov 09 @ 5:12 pm est Comments

LOOKING INTO OUR FUTURE

The U.S Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] which is charged with studying, reporting, and making recommendations on 'best practices' for preventative medicine for the Department of Health and Human Services. has just published a set of recommendations regarding mammograms and other breast cancer prevention methods. From The Washington Post, Rob Stein reporting, we learn:

Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.

In its first reevaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the independent government-appointed panel recommended the changes, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefit.

Coming amid a highly charged national debate over health-care reform and simmering suspicions about the possibility of rationing medical services, the recommendations immediately became enveloped in controversy.

"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."

Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts welcomed the new guidelines, saying they represent a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

But the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.

"Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it," said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. "It's crazy -- unethical, really."

The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do the exams or to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74.

That enveloping controversy is best described as a firestorm, in my opinion. It is being discussed all over talk radio today and in the Blogosphere.

Just six months agao this same panel was warning of potential catastrophe because of a small percentage fall in the rate of women having breast cancer screening exams.

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey speculates:

What changed in six months to change the USPSTF from a sky-is-falling hysteric on a 1% decline in testing to Emily Litella? If the administration gets its way, the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams when ObamaCare passes. That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates.

The motivation for HHS will be to cut costs, not to save lives. The sudden reversal in six months of the USPSTF, especially after it made such a stink over a relatively minor decline in screening, certainly makes it appear that they have other priorities than life-saving in mind here.

One final thought. Barack Obama predicated his ObamaCare vision on the notion that increased prevention would save costs. Suddenly, his administration is for decreasedscreening and prevention. Could that have anything to do with the CBO scoring on screening? And what does that say about how government will make decisions once they control the compensation and care in the US?

Once again we are confronted with a theory that just a year ago would have made most of us dismiss the creator of it as way off-base, but that now seems quite possible to reasonable people. I think Ed's onto something here.

He also does us a great service by printing the names and specialities of all of the members that sit on the USPSTF. Doctors, professors, and nurses sit on it. As Ed points out: NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE DOCTORS IS AN ONCOLOGIST.

This is outrageous. This is a taste of what Obamacare will bring to all areas of health care.

As Philip Klein points out:

...This is just a sign of things to come if Democrats get their way and begin to issue more findings on a wider range of medical treatments. And it can only be made worse is future lawmakers decide to require government programs, or policies offered through the government-run exchange, to adopt the panel's recommendations. While the advice would be non-binding according to current legislation, many policy makers have argued for giving more power to such a board, including Obama's first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle.

Over at Carol's Closet, Carol is spot-on blunt:

The panel admits that screenings save lives but not enough to justify the cost. Welcome to nationalize health care ladies, your life has just been reduced to dollars and cents....

As Chris, over at WyBlog, puts it:

Sixteen nameless, faceless bureaucrats will have the power to decide if you can or cannot receive potentially life-saving screenings or treatment. Not your doctor. And certainly not you.

I do not want politicians and professors and nurses making decisions about my health care. That is something to be decided between me and my doctor(s).

Lets also hear from a young woman, Cassy Fiano:

Barack Obama claimed that he would be championing increased screening and prevention. Yet now we’ve got a federal panel wanting to just cut back the number of mammograms performed, mammograms that could potentially be life-saving, because you could get a false positive and feel anxiety? I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’d rather be safe than sorry. I’d rather get the mammogram and have the doctors look into that suspicious lump, false positive or not, than just shove it off for a few years and end up having cancer in a more severe stage. Isn’t that what Obama’s panel here is basically recommending?

And they aren’t even going after just mammograms. They don’t even want women doing self-exams anymore! I guess they don’t want to take the risk of a woman who is “too young” finding a lump on her breast and getting it checked out, just to be safe. I mean, jeez, that would just be waaaytoo costly. The motivation here is clearly not to save lives or decrease some imagined anxiety women get over their mammograms. (After all, what person wouldn’t be anxious if they thought they had cancer? It seems perfectly natural to me.) It’s just pathetic and extremely depressing to me that Obamacare hasn’t even passed yet — and already, we have federal panels recommending rationing care.

I keep asking — are you happy you voted for change now? Is this the hope you wanted?

In 2006, I was operated on for cancer. I went through seven months of chemo and six weeks of radiation. The Big C hasn't come back yet. Every three months I have extensive blood work done and see my oncologist. Every six months I have a three-part CT-Scan done. Once a year I have a colonoscopy done. Before, during, and after each of these, my wife and I experience a great deal of anxiety. Also, little scares pop-up every now and again that make us anxious. This is all part of kicking the Big C's ass and living on. But all of these anxious moments combined would not add-up to the day-to-day anxiety I would feel if I was denied screening. So I have an idea what women feel when they are denied breast cancer screening. As Cassy writes, a little anxiety here and there is better than not doing any preventative measures at all and sitting there, totally in the dark, wondering if something insidious is crowing inside of you. We've come so far in beating down the death rate and suffering breast cancer has brought to women. Jim Hoft has the numbers:

This is certainly a surprising move by the feds. Researchers discovered that it was because of breast cancer screenings that women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Breast cancer mortality is also 9 percent higher in Canada than in the US. Less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it’s 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.

It looks like that is about to change even before Obamacare.

If you are going to get breast cancer, the best place in the world to get it is in America. Now bureaucrats and politicians and ruthless medical specialists want to deny women hope.

People who think this way have to figuratively be put down.

This is why Obamacare must be defeated and never passed: literally, our lives depend on it.

18 nov 09 @ 2:28 pm est Comments

THE LATEST FROM PACO ENTERPRISES

CEO and Chairman Of The Bored, Paco has announced that Paco Enterprises is publishing three new magazines that should generate readership in these interesting times. Here's a sample of one:

To see the others, please click here.

Also, please click here to see the company's proposal for a new limo for President Barack Hussein Obama that is 'commensurate with the dignity he has brought to the presidency'. I don't know about you, but I won't mind my tax dollars being used to purchase it.

18 nov 09 @ 11:23 am est Comments

PEKING SUCK

Our beloved leader, Comrade Obamnin, has been enjoying himself as of late in The People's Republic Of China [or, as some of us old Cold Warriors stubbornly insist on still calling it: Red China, to distinguish it from the legitimate Chinese government in Taiwan]. I'm not surprised as it is in Red China that he probably feels quite at home. After all, the Chinese Communists are obviously a model for him. He probably even envies that they don't have the restraints imposed on them that he has to seek to evade back in the horrible and unjust United States Of America. They say our Fearless Leader is a quick study so I suspect he's taking a lot of notes while he's in the Land Of Gulags.

Track-A-'Crat has up a very good posting looking at and analyzing the trip so far. He makes a prediction that I would be willing to bet everything I have on:

The world’s bad boys do not need any encouragement to be worse than they already are. But Barry’s invertebrate behavior is fueling actions that are not going to end well. China has been waiting to overwhelm Taiwan since 1949. In the past 60 years, there has never been a better time for them to strike.

...

The Decider, he ain’t.

My prediction for an exogenous shock during Barry’s mis-administration?

The fall of Taiwan.

Bet on it. The Chinese are naturally experts at patiently waiting and knowing the right moment to pounce. Add natural Communist ruthlessness into the mix and you have Track's prediction being vindicated in the not-too-distant future.

18 nov 09 @ 11:11 am est Comments

GREAT NEW BLOG

Speaking of GatorDoug...

He just recently started another blog, What Would The Founding Fathers Do?, where he looks at today's issues and what the Founders said about the same issues in their time. There's some great reading to be found there [and ammunition we can use for the coming battles].

His Mission Statement:

The Founding Fathers did their duty, and a great nation was born. Now, let us, the American people, resolve to do our duty so that our Republic may survive. If we succeed, the liberties bestowed upon us by our Creator will endure. If we fail, then everything our Founders did is gone forever. We will either be free, or subjects. We will either be left alone to pursue our dreams, reach for our goals, and to secure and enjoy the fruits of our labors and talents, or, we will be forever yoked to an overbearing government that restricts our liberties.

This blog is dedicated to preserving liberty, restoring Constitutional government, and defeating those who would sacrifice our natural rights upon the altar of Marxism.

18 nov 09 @ 10:16 am est Comments

OH WHAT A BEAUTIFUL FISKING

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love the sound of a good Fisking in the morning.

And this morning I found that we have GatorDoug administering a very effective one, over at The Daley Gator, to David Frump...er, Frum. It seems Aphid...er, David thinks only 'professional conservatives' should be active in politics; the hoi polloi should just keep quiet and follow instructions from people like himself. If you know GD, you know he wasn't going to remain silent. A highlight:

Excuse me for asking but it does seem that a good many of the GOP establishment, including some "Conservative" columnists have a certain disdain for the average, everyday American who dare to get too acvtive in politics. The latest example comes from David Frum via Wizbang. Frum opines doom and destruction for the GOP in this piece.

The Republican fratricide in the November 3 special election in upstate New York may prove just an opening round of an even more spectacular bloodbath in Florida in 2010. In New York, Republican feuding lost the party a seat in the House of Representatives. At stake in Florida is not only a senatorship - but very possibly Republican hopes for 2012 as well.

Hmmm, I guess Frum forgets that the "Republican" rejected was a Liberal, a Liberal who ended up endorsing the Democrat? Would we really be better off with a Democrat in Republican clothing? Frum also misses the point about why Conservatives rose up against Scozzafava and for Doug Hoffman in NY23.

Please do take the time to click here and enjoy the rest of the slapdown.

18 nov 09 @ 10:08 am est Comments

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

THREE LITTLE PICS*

Three little pics, oh what I'd give for those wonderful snaps,
To see those three little picss, that's all I'd live for the rest of my days...

And what I feel in my heart, they tell sincerely.
No other pics can tell it half so clearly...

Three little pics, eight little letters which simply mean 'I hate you'.

*With apologies to to Bert Kalmar, Harry Ruby, Bing Crosby, & Frank Sinatra

17 nov 09 @ 7:26 pm est Comments

LIES, DAMN LIES, AND LEFTISTS

I'd say the Left's favorite target these days is Sarah Palin. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Michelle Bachmann are certainly in the Top Ten. Truth be told, every conservative or libertarian who speaks up against the Left becomes a target in someway, with the level of invective and calumnies, it seems, being determined by how 'dangerous' the Left considers the target to be. For some it is merely having the Comments sections of their websites invaded by trolls, for others it is a relentless attack on all fronts, whenever an opportunity presents itself. Some are attacked directly to smear their reputations, but also used as indirect targets to get at others.

The latter situation applies to my friend Stacy McCain. While often the subject of direct attacks that seek to destroy his well-earned positive reputation because he is a much listened too voice on the Right [especially in the campaign to unite conservatives and libertarians in the fight against tyranny], Stacy has also been attacked on account of his connection to others.

If you're a regular reader of his insightful and entertaining blog, The Other McCain, you know this voice of reason [and good cheer] has been subjected to many slanderous attacks over the past year. The main charge is that he is a 'white supremeisist'. As many of my Friends In The Ether will testify, this is pure nonsense. The caliber of the language used against Stacy is of the same disgusting flavor as Ted Kennedy employed against Robert Bork [and S.T.O.P. for Leftists]. In response to these attacks, Stacy has handled himself very well. Always the gentleman, he has, in fact, showed a restraint that many of us would be unable to command. He has refused also to let the attackers control the dialogue, which is a common tactic of the Left.

Now he is the subject again of baseless attacks on his character and reputation. This time the main attacker is Max Blumenthal of The Daily Beast and The Nation [the leading Socialist magazine in America]. Once again, however, Stacy is an indirect target.

Several years ago, he co-authored a book with Lynn Vincent, Donky Cons. Mrs. Vincent has just helped Sarah Palin write her book, Going Rogue. Max Blumenthal, son of the cretinous brown-noser Sidney Blumenthal, in chip-off-the-old-block fashion, has, I have no doubt, made his Daddy proud: he has written a screed against Lynn Vincent and Stacy McCain that is slanderous and full of lies, something his father was known for doing. Stacy has, once again, been forced to respond to another idiot's lies and distortions. One can feel his frustration when he writes:

The point I keep trying to make -- and evidently people don't pay attention -- is that it is the motives of the accusers which ought to be the focus of inquiry. If these people can point to no actual harm I've done to anyone in pursuit of my alleged nefarious agenda, why do they keep recycling the same allegations? What's in it for them?

Stacy's responded to Sidney's begotten son in a reply to the following:

In response to a Palin-bashing expedition by Max Blumenthal -- attempting a guilt-by-association smear involving my Donkey Cons co-author --today I got an e-mail from my old friend, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center:

So you know Palin according to Max Blumenthal.
Is his reporting true?

Always happy to help a damsel in distress, I sent Heidi this e-mail reply....

Please do take the time to click here and read the reply in full. It is well-reasoned.

[See also: Race and Racism: My Definitive Statement, especially the exchange in the Comments section between Stacy and 'Diane']

Ben Smith, over at Politico, has seen fit to weigh-inand criticize Mr. Blumenthal for his lies about Mrs. Vincent, but sadly he links to two lying sources [Michelangelo Signorile and The Southern Poverty Law Center] about Stacy that have been refuted by him and others many, many times. What's so frustrating about Ben Smith is that he is obviously a good writer and, when he actually does research [as with Lynn Vincent's background], he reports what he finds no matter where it leads. The trouble is: he is also a lazy reporter who often cannot muster up the energy to research every road he should travel down. Either that, or he feels compelled to compensate with gratuitous slurs after he's made an uncomfortable point. At 1456 yesterday afternoon, Mr. Smith did add two words to his paragraph on Stacy that lessen things a bit, but the two slandering sources are still cited. I remain disappointed [when you expect honorable behavior from the Left, you will inevitably be disappointed].

Over at Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson has some great commentary and background on the Smith posting. A highlight:

It's one thing when the Max Blumenthals of the world engage in such tactics. It's quite different, and infinitely more damaging, when Politico does the same.

For years into the future, Smith's Politico post will be cited by bloggers and pundits as proof that McCain (and anyone who knows him) is a racist; that's how smears work on the internet. Start the smear at some blog or publication no one ever has heard of, get someone partisan at a larger publication to cite to it, then get a respected organization like Politico to cite to it, and now it is "proof."

Over at Saberpoint, Stogie, once again, rises to the defense of Stacy.

17 nov 09 @ 4:54 pm est Comments

FEELING VIOLATED

In a posting on Friday, I posted about the decision by the Administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others in civilian courts in a posting entitled ADMINISTRATION TAKES ANOTHER DUMP ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. They love to release controversial news on the last day of the week when our focus is elsewhere. Better still if our Fearless Leader is out of the country. I know, I know, this is a standard political tactic used by politicians from both sides, but I have always considered it a cowardly thing to do.

Since they took the dump, I've gathered some other wisdom from the Ether....

-Don Surber is spot-on:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed collected the first of his 72 virgins: Barack Obama.

This child — this spoiled brat who has been handed everything — who has never held a job — who has been told all his life how wonderful he is — who accepts no responsibility at all for anything — who blames others for all his problems — whose only accomplishment in life is not being George Bush — got rolled.

Big time.

President Obama’s decision to try KSM as if he were a purse-snatcher bares once and for all shows how shallow our president is. He is ignorant of history and of legal precedent. He would rather draw down the U.S. security forces to protect KSM so that KSM can have the world stage in New York City than trust his own military to try the man. The same military justice system that covers those soldiers he praised a few days ago should be good enough for this scum sucker, KSM.

-In addition to other wise thoughts, Paco offers this one regarding one of the explanations being floated around to explain why Obama and his minions have taken this action:

If this really isabout putting the Bush administration on trial, no matter what the cost to America's security and American lives, then Obama is indisputably the most contemptible man to ever serve as president.

-William Teach comments on the report of how the decision was reached that appeared in The Washington Post. This is the choice bit:

At a news conference, Holder emphasized the location to full symbolic effect: “After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York — to New York — to answer for their alleged crimes, in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood.”

Right there is the money quote. The Obama administration is trying to create a photo op, something they can hang their hats on as being “tough on terrorists,” because this is what stands for being tough on terrorists in Liberal World.

No matter which way you look at it, this is going to backfire badly on Holder and Obama. As all the information comes back to the public conscience regarding 9/11, we will remember why the attacks happened, namely, because Democrats are extremely weak on national security, and most Americans could care less that a scumbag like KSM was waterboarded to get information that will protect American and American lives.

-In my opinion, Pat Austin is justified in her anger:

To those that say that the American justice system can handle such a trial and that we've done it before, I say you're missing the point. The point is that you simply cannot treat an act of terrorism on Americans as a criminal matter. It was an act of war and must be treated as such. To drag KSM and all of the evidence into a courtroom is the most an incredibly dangerous thing to Americans that Obama could do.

This decision has simply got to be political suicide for Obama. I can not figure out why he would make such a hugely unpopular choice and one that he knows full well puts America right back in al Qaeda's crosshairs.

Many of us have been questioning his love for America from day one; this just reinforces that opinion in my mind. He should take every effort possible to keep America safe from another terrorist attack. He has not done so in this case.

I think there's also another way we can explain why President Obama and his Attorney General took this action:

1) Both Obama and Holder do not believe that we are at war.

2) They believe, therefore, that the acts committed by KSM and his ilk are criminal offenses.

3) They are both committed Leftists, which means they believe that the Old United States [before Obama] conducted itself like a thug in world affairs and, through its past actions, created conditions that forced KSM and his ilk to adopt terrorism out of desperation. Deep down inside, Obama and Holder believe we brought 9/11 and the other attacks on ourselves.

4) The President and Attorney General therefore believe that KSM and the others deserve all of the protections of US Law that criminal defendants get [which the Left has made a joke] and, if they get off, it won't be such a bad outcome.

Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder have violated their oaths of office.

17 nov 09 @ 2:45 pm est Comments

AND IT MAKES ME WONDER

Ever have one of those moments when you read or hear something one of your compatriots, whose intelligence you admire, writes or says that makes you go:

Man! You got it so wrong. I surprised at you. Are you off your game or what? Are you not feeling well?

I had one of those moments this morning when I read this by Phillip Klein, who has been doing great work over at AmSpecBlog [emphasis mine]:

For me, Palin remains somebody who is personally likable but better off remaining out of elective office. She seems a lot more comfortable when she's free to say and do what she wants, but running for (or holding) office meansconstant scruitiny, giving up a lot of freedom and independence and having to delve into policy questions in more detail than she's ever shown interest in.

After reading the above, I was rendered speechless for a few moments. It seems Mr. Klein has been sampling a bit of the of the moose-flavored Kool Aid served up by those who think she's a dumb zealot housewife. I dare him to ask Mrs. Plain about energy policy or socialized health care so he can learn some details I am quite sure he doesn't know. Look, I think there are most definitely issues where she has got to 'hit the books' [foreign policy for one] as it were, but to accuse her of not being the kind of person who likes to take the time and study issues is to buy into the lies and distortions about her character propagated by the Left. As Melanie Kirkpatrick put it recently in a review of Going Rogue [tip of the fedora to Donald Douglas]:

...As a politician, she comes across as a prodigious worker capable of mastering complicated issues—not least the energy policies that matter so much to Alaska's economy—and of building bridges to Democrats.

And this is from someone who, if your read the full review, is not a Palin supporter [yet, there's hope, methinks].

Mr. Klein: I hope you receover from whatever illness you're suffering from soon, as we need your sharp mind in the battles ahead.

17 nov 09 @ 2:01 pm est Comments

UNCONCEDED, UNDEFEATED

Last week I wrote [here] about the fact that in New York's 23rd Congressional District Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman was gaining on the apparent winner of the special election Bill Owens. After recanvassing, the vote difference between the two has shrunk by almost two thousand votes to 3,206 and there were still, at that time, approximately ten thousand absentee votes [mostly from military personnel] yet to be counted. While I really had very little hope that Mr. Hoffman could garner enough votes to be declared the winner, I did remark on the lawlessness of Speaker Pelosi's action in having Mr. Owens sworn in before the election was certified.

Yesterday evening we learned the following from Jordan Fabian of The Hill [tip of the fedora to Kathryn Jean Lopez]:

Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has "unconceded" in New York's special House election after reports that the vote margin narrowed between him and Rep. Bill Owens (D).

...

Hoffman appeared on conservative commenatator Glenn Beck's radio show this afternoon. Beck asked the him if he would "unconcede."

"Yes, if I knew this information at the election night, I would not have conceded," Hoffman said. Beck asked him again if he was "unconceding" and Hoffman replied, "If that’s possible, yes."

The odds are still against Doug Hoffman making up the difference, but I hope the closer results will encourage him to run again next year. We need men like Doug Hoffman running for the Congress: ordinary men who rise to the occasion and heed the call of their nation when it is trouble and who are not polished and professional pols.

17 nov 09 @ 11:09 am est Comments

KNOCK, KNOCK....IS THERE ANYBODY THERE? BOB...WHERE ARE YOU?

I'm getting old...I thought I had published a posting last Wednesday announcing that I would be taking few days off from work and not blogging as much until today. I was sure I had done it, but, turns out, I hadn't. Apologies all around and the next round is on me.

17 nov 09 @ 10:52 am est Comments

Archive

Newer | Older

Dispatches are archived by week; click on the links above.