mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

March 14, 2005

California Court Rules that California Constitution is Unconstitutional

California Family Code 300: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

California Family Code 308.5 "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Er, I usually don't chime in on this kind of stuff but the judge really can't be serious, can he? :

In his 27-page decision, Kramer ... said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates "the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," and has no rational justification.

So are liberal justices about to revive Lochner Era jurisprudence or what? Hat tip: Ace

PS-I have this hot cousin.....

UPDATE: Meanwhile....as California violates the 'human rights' of homosexuals Saudi Arabia is busy beheading the gays. Saudis Behead Gay Couple

More....more...more....more...

Double PS-I have been accused of a lot of things, but never a social conservative....

UPDATE II: Judge rules traditional definition of 'idiot' not justified simply because such definition is traditional.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:01 PM | Comments (65) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.

1 So you're saying that discrimination is OK as long as it's worse in Saudi Arabia?

Posted by: Don Myers at March 14, 2005 04:45 PM (ENqi7)

2 I'll chime in. Twisting what a marriage is--a sacramental and spiritual union between a man and a woman--into some kind of civil contract that anyone can demand is absurd and an insult to mankind. Where will it end? When will someone marry a dog? Why does one "partner" have to be actually living? Why can't someone demand to marry George Washinton, deceased for two centuries? What about an inflatable dummy? This is the same mentality that drives people who don't believe the creed of the Boy Scouts to want to join them, even if their creed is in direct contrast. It's the same mentality that makes some sexes want to attend same-sex schools "BECAUSE I HAVE A RIGHT!" And so, in the name of diversity, every institution is sadly homogenized. We've come along way, baby.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 14, 2005 04:51 PM (obGyP)

3 I believe a lot of types of discrimination are ok. Discrimination is a basic human characteristic that should be celebrated. I discriminate against stupid people. I discriminate against the intolerant. I also discriminate against fat chicks. Discrimination may be good or it may be bad. But crying 'discrimination' is a rather stupid political trick. Effective, yes, but stupid all the same.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 14, 2005 04:51 PM (JQjhA)

4 Didn't we do this already. Haven't the people of CA voted. So much for the Courts listening to the electorate.

Posted by: Red at March 14, 2005 05:52 PM (YyvXn)

5 Can someone tell me how gays were being discriminated against here? I really don't understand it. Gay men are being treated exactly the same as every other man - no man can marry another man, for any reason. The same goes for gay women. So where, exactly, is the discrimination?

Posted by: Jimmie at March 14, 2005 06:04 PM (wRMfM)

6 Don Myers: Denying homosexual marriage is not discrimination. Quip crying the same old bullshit. It abnormal and weird. While I have not particular hate for gays (more sorrow for them) sometimes they push to far. Families are not composed of two fathers who bugger each other. Islamofacists bugger camels. Should they be allowed to marry? Would denying them marriage be discrimination? Whats the difference? Both are abnormal practices against nature. Keep it in the closet.

Posted by: greryooster at March 14, 2005 06:11 PM (CBNGy)

7 Rusty: Discrimination against stupid people. OK. Discrimination against fat chicks. OK. But when you start to discriminae against the intolerant we need to talk. Getting close to home here. What is your neck size?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 06:15 PM (CBNGy)

8 Well, Rusty, since you and your intolerant pals have decided that you and only you are the final arbiter of "good" vs "bad" discrimination, let's get our lines drawn in the sand here. Which of the following groups is it OK to deny the civil right to enter into a contract (which is, after all, what we're talking about here): **blacks **japs **lithuanians **people who watch Yes, Dear **people who only read books on airplanes **Gilbert and Sullivan fans **Yankee fans **Red Sox fans **the Miami Dolphins **people who earn less than $27,000/year **non-bloggers

Posted by: Don Myers at March 14, 2005 06:27 PM (4o3gN)

9 Well, Rusty, since you and your intolerant pals have decided that you and only you are the final arbiter of "good" vs "bad" discrimination, let's get our lines drawn in the sand here. Which of the following groups is it OK to deny the civil right to enter into a contract (which is, after all, what we're talking about here): **blacks **japs **lithuanians **people who watch Yes, Dear **people who only read books on airplanes **Gilbert and Sullivan fans **Yankee fans **Red Sox fans **the Miami Dolphins **people who earn less than $27,000/year **non-bloggers **women

Posted by: Don Myers at March 14, 2005 06:27 PM (4o3gN)

10 Just butt pirates Don

Posted by: Brad at March 14, 2005 06:39 PM (NzgK/)

11 All of the above.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 07:08 PM (CBNGy)

12 A California judge decides that the constitution of California is unconstitutional. I guess he bases his decision on what the California constitution says?????????????????? Don Myers: You need to get together with faggot Jim. He's only too. Friggin weirdo. What's a good muslim terrorist when you need him?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 07:11 PM (CBNGy)

13 Man, have I had too much to drink. Couldn't spell good when I was sober.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 07:15 PM (CBNGy)

14 Rooster Lay off that Johnny Walker its lethal and you nearly made me choke on my coffee

Posted by: sparky at March 14, 2005 07:38 PM (F1nba)

15 The decision is literally irrational since there is no legal foundation for it. There is no basis for this in the US Constitution or in the California Constitution. It will quickly be overturned by California's amazingly ( in contrast to the rest of the state judiciary ... ) rational state Supreme Court. This is an example of the serious problem of tyranny of the judiciary.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 14, 2005 08:55 PM (xauGB)

16 I fully support descriminating against Yankees fans, those bastards deserve it. Jumping back from hypersensitivity for a brief moment here, the real problem with the original story has nothing to do with homosexual marriage, it has to do with judges overstepping their bounds (which has been going on for ages, just ask Mark Levin). A judge saying that a specific law violates the constitution (state or federal), you have a potential problem, but it's at least their job (more or less). When you have a state judge deciding that the state constitution itself is in violation, he's gone way the Hell too far. Judges aren't there to rewrite consitutions, their there to interpret them. That's the problem in this story. I don't give a rip who's getting married, I'm concerned about judges violating the rights of the people on a wholesale manner. People worry about 'tyranny by majority'? Well, it's a damn sight better than 'tyranny by minority'. Which, in this case, is 1. Democracy is "We, the people", not "I, the judge".

Posted by: Petoht at March 14, 2005 09:01 PM (oeUjM)

17 You can try to fight the tide, but the tide will win in the end.

Posted by: Collin Baber at March 15, 2005 02:18 AM (tpvAS)

18 Colon Babbler!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 04:40 AM (/GhVC)

19 I have no illusions of convincing y'all that GLBT Americans deserve the same civil rights as straight Americans---for the same reason I wouldn't try to convice a racist that blacks deserve the same civil rights as whites. Either you believe in equal rights, or you don't. Clearly, most of the people on this blog are in the "don't" column. Fifty years ago, many of you would have been howling about activist judges legislating from the bench in Brown v Board of Education Separate but equal isn't equal. It's just that simple. If you would like to tell your children someday that you were on the side of equality and justice, you should be supporting gay marriage any way you can. If you want to explain to your children someday---as Sen. Byrd has had to do---that you hated people who were different than you and tried to make them second-class citizens, then by all means carry on.

Posted by: Don Myers at March 15, 2005 05:30 AM (4o3gN)

20 Don--I see the word "hate" has reared its ugly head. Those who oppose men or women marrying within their gender are affirming that marriage is not merely a human instition. Therefore humans do not--CAN NOT--make the rules. If I want to swim around for the rest of my life and be officialy labeled as a fish by everyone around me, it is not hateful for someone to point out the fact that I, or anyone else for that matter, do not have the authority declare such a ludicrous thing. This is not hate, this is SANITY.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 07:45 AM (x+5JB)

21 Don, you still haven't how saying that any man may only marry one woman at a time, or vice versa, is discriminatory. What men are we treating differently in what we allow them to do, or what woman, for that matter?

Posted by: Jimmie at March 15, 2005 09:27 AM (LIkgw)

22 Y.B.P: What is your justification for the claim that marriage is "not merely a human institution"? It *is* "merely" a human institution and we always *have* made the rules. Your rules about marriage being only one man and one woman and nothing else is one of the more recent revisions. I'm sure you won't take my word for it, so do some research. "Boston Marriages" from late 19th-century U.S.A. is a good place to start. Jimmie: The men (and women) we are treating differently are those who can't be physically attracted to the opposite gender. They *do* exist, though certain people seem intent on putting their heads in the sand over this fact. Straights are allowed to follow their hearts; it is legally protected. Gays can't. And not for any rational reason, but just because people like you dislike them. *That* is bigotry and discrimination, plain and simple.

Posted by: frank-o at March 15, 2005 11:15 AM (74rA1)

23 A California judge decides that the constitution of California is unconstitutional. I guess he bases his decision on what the California constitution says? Yes he does. He bases it on the equal protection clause in the CA constitution. As far as liberal judges go, Judge Kramer is a Catholic who was appointed by a Republican. Those darn Republicans, always appointind activist judges.

Posted by: mantis at March 15, 2005 12:50 PM (FhKVq)

24 Someone should tell those ignorant judges about the only real defination of a marrage between one man and one woman and something must be done about judges who abuse their power

Posted by: sandpiper at March 15, 2005 02:59 PM (Za6Ve)

25 Frank-O: I'm basing my definition, and the definition followed by Judaeo-Christians for 2000 years, upon the New Testament. It has been the foundation of Western Civilizeation for the same number of years. I'm not basing my views on ANYTHING from Boston.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 03:13 PM (x+5JB)

26 If Kramer is for gay marriage, then he is a Catholic in name only. I'll be explicit. He is a bad Catholic. If he is advocating something that the Church condemnes, then he should be excommunicated. Here'a a basic analogy: A kid can't be a good Boy Scout if he teaches that a person SHOULDN'T be prepared.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 03:20 PM (x+5JB)

27 I'm basing my definition, and the definition followed by Judaeo-Christians for 2000 years, upon the New Testament. It has been the foundation of Western Civilizeation for the same number of years. Kind of ignoring the Greeks and the Enlightenment, aren't you YBP? I think they might have had some influence on western civilization. If Kramer is for gay marriage, then he is a Catholic in name only. I'll be explicit. He is a bad Catholic. If he is advocating something that the Church condemnes, then he should be excommunicated. Well, maybe he was interpreting the law without letting his personal religious beliefs into his decision. If he had, that would have been judicial activism, now wouldn't it? As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, this is not grounds for automatic excommunication, or even interdict for that matter. Plus I'm not sure they do all that much excommunicating anymore. Here's my analogy: A judge that interprets the law based on personal or religious beliefs rather than the law itself can't be a good judge. Now you may argue on legals grounds against his decision, and the interpretation of the equal rights clause, as will surely happen in the next 60 days (the amount of time the Judge allowed before anything takes effect) on appeal. But I think it's pretty clear he's not an "activist". Roy Moore is an activist. Judge Kramer may be a bad Catholic (although I don't believe that as he is not suggesting the Catholic church perform or recognize gay marriage), but he's a good judge in my opinion.

Posted by: mantis at March 15, 2005 03:56 PM (FhKVq)

28 The judge is in NoCal. Home of Peolsi and Boxer. No judge in Cerritos would rule this way. Red - - We have voted on this 3 times in the last 2 decades. The law always passes with 62%-67% of the people. This is why Dr. Frist needs to start kicking ass in the Senate to get some decent judges on the federal benches. This judge is a local judge BTW. The case has many levels of appeal to go, unfortunately. Our tax $ hard at work.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 15, 2005 04:43 PM (l5t6M)

29 The people of California explicitly amended the state Constitution to exclude gay marriage. That there is an "equal rights" clause in the same state constitution doesn't change that and is in fact a dishonest argument. Don, calling people bigots because they don't agree with you convinces no one.

Posted by: SPQR at March 15, 2005 04:46 PM (xauGB)

30 Standard tactics cropping up here, I'm afraid. The fact still remains that this judge does not have the authority to rule on if the constitution is constitutional. I'm a security guard. I can stop people from entering my client's property, because that's my jurisdiction. I can't pull people over for speeding on I 55. That's outside the scope of my authority. Judges simply do not have the authority to change state constitutions. Amazing how quickly people forget that when the judges are making illegal rulings they agree with.

Posted by: Petoht at March 15, 2005 04:59 PM (c7ysE)

31 Western civilizations has always taken what is good from past civilzations. Buggery is not among among it. "Well, maybe he was interpreting the law without letting his personal religious beliefs into his decision." Basically, this means leaving morality out of our laws. Why outlaw theft? Why outlaw murder? This has long been condemned in many an encyclical. I think Kerry was the poster child for this philosophy. "Plus I'm not sure they do all that much excommunicating anymore." This is indeed a pity, as it only confuses the Faithful. And the not-so-Faithful.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 05:55 PM (S5syt)

32 I sense a great fear of assfucking around here. What's next? Picking-of-nose-o-phobia? What is it with you people and bodily crevices? Indeed one has to wonder how something so harmless conducted by two consenting adults could be condemned in such a manner. I'm sure you people don't confine yourself to ye olde missionary position everytime it's time to dip the salami? I say, mind your own business, or crawl back under the rock and wait for evolution.

Posted by: Alchemy at March 15, 2005 07:19 PM (5wVma)

33 "I sense a great fear of assfucking around here." Is this a common bar line utilized?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 07:50 PM (S5syt)

34 I've come to accept the fact that Catholics and other religious fools in this country will not accept the defacing of marriage by allowing homosexuals to commit to it. You know what? Let them. The Catholic Church DID develop the process of marriage. Let them be the fucking stupid, narrow-minded, intolerant pricks they are. Call it something else and allow gays to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. If the gay community won't accept this small concession then they will probably fight a pointless battle. And you hardcore Catholics/Christians/whatever, stop pretending like you're fucking better than others. Look at your own god damned system and how corrupt it is and worry about that. I'm so fucking sick of how this country bends over backwards so as not to offend any religious folk when all they do is insult this group and that group under the mask of "God's word." Just shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 15, 2005 09:03 PM (xM3Dg)

35 Greyrooster, You're a fucking idiot. Plain and simple. You glorify heterosexual couples in this country? And heterosexuality in general? Take a look at the number of couples living together but not marrying. Take a look at the divorce rate between couples that are married. Look at the fucking hoards of trash in this country that reproduce and abuse their children. Oh, that's ok. But God forbid there should be two fathers or two mothers who have been shown to have no problems raising normal children and caring well for adopted kids or those in foster care. Nooooo, can't let them parent neglected and abused kids. You fucking dumbass. You are the reason people dislike this country. You're just as fucking retarded and narrow-minded as the anti-war crowd. You don't want to be threatened by two men marrying (OOO SCARY) and they don't want to give a shit about anyone else in the world for the sake of "peace." You should all go live on other planets. Take your head out of your ass, absorb a little culture other than the pathetic enclosed existence you lead, and start focusing on some SERIOUS problems in our country, because let me tell you, your priorities are way out of whack.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 15, 2005 09:11 PM (xM3Dg)

36 UBP - If you're really under the delusion that "marriage" is a sacrament that Jesus handed down to build western civilization, be assured that the judge only ruled on the civil contract between 2 adults that the government provides for people that share and build their lives together. (see 1st amendment)

Posted by: Robguy at March 15, 2005 09:32 PM (+7qPG)

37 I'm amazed by the ingnorance of posters on the role of the judiciary as descibrd by the constution. The judicial role is not to merely rubberstamp anything which the legislature or the people through direct election attempt to establish as law. It explicitly includes the abiilty to review the resulting legislation for compliance with the Constitution. If it is found to violate it, then the law is overturned as invalid--it was never validm no matter what proportion of the populace voted for it. This provides a check on the "tyranny of the majority". If a ballot proposition was offered which would eliminate all outstanding consumer credit card debt, even it it won by a landslide the courts could--in complete accordance with their role--overturn that law as violating a clause of the constitution. And keep in mind that the majority of CA ballot initiatives are overturned for that reason. Even an ammendment to the constitution can be nullified if it is in direct conflict with a pre-existing constutional clause. This can be avoided by ammending to revise an existing clause, but that is not what was done. None of this is activist. It's a judge's responsibility. It seems that people cry "liberal activist judge" simply because they disagree with the ruling, while conveniently ignoring that the majority of the MA judges (all but one) were Republicans appointed by Republicans, and also ignoring that the judge in this case is a Republican with a conservative history on the bench.

Posted by: Jboy at March 15, 2005 10:15 PM (j1yF5)

38 wow Igor. How can I say this politely...you're a dumbass. What caused Rome to fall? Sex with anyone and anything that moved i.e.they turned into little pussies that wanted to have sex than fight,hence they were defeated. I read in the paper a few months ago that a man in south east asia married the family cow.By opening the door to gay marriage we will open the door to unintended consequenses. There are alot of sick people out there just waiting for gay marriage to pass,so they can push for say marrying their sister or daughter..equal protection under the law.

Posted by: xtremewing at March 15, 2005 10:26 PM (F++qI)

39 That's all fine jboy, except that there is no constitutional violation on the part of restricting marriage to hetereosexuals unless one redefines the "constitution" to be not that compact first adopted in 1789 not to include any statement on the subject and never since amended to state anything about the subject of same-sex marriage. No, only if you redefine "constitution" to mean instead whatever a handful of elites feel it ought to mean.

Posted by: SPQR at March 16, 2005 12:29 AM (xauGB)

40 Ok so we should keep gay marriages outlawed because we should be afraid of people wanting to marry animals as a result? Are you fucking retarded? And Rome fell because of homosexuality? Ahahahaha, and I'm the dumbass. Wow, this is priceless.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 01:38 AM (xM3Dg)

41 Ok so we should keep gay marriages outlawed because we should be afraid of people wanting to marry animals as a result? Are you fucking retarded? And Rome fell because of homosexuality? Ahahahaha, if I'm the dumbass, I can't even imagine what that would make you.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 01:39 AM (xM3Dg)

42 YBP, do you hear what you're saying? Or are you blindly typing away some pseudo-intellectual bullshit every time hoping it makes sense? The belief that an omnipotent invisible entity created the Earth is NOT A MORAL. Why outlaw theft? Because everyone has a fundamental understanding of possession. What is yours belongs to you. Why outlaw murder? Because everyone realizes the right to life. This has nothing the fuck to do with religion. You think without the Bible everyone on Earth would be running around committing homicide and stealing? Out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many people have died as a result of religious doctrine? And jboy, by your theory I guess the Jim Crowe laws should still be in effect? Stop complicating the issue. What the hell does gay marriage have to do with the "tyranny of the majority?" How will two men marrying in some part of the country have ANY effect on heterosexual marriages? Does it illegitimize them? Or does it pollute them in some way? Would you be against it if it the legal term for it was "union" but it maintained benefits that hetero couples get? It's 2005. Open your eyes. We're not living in caves anymore. I'm far from gay. I'm a jock, and to be quite frank with you, I love pussy. Also, really flamboyant gays annoy me. But why the hell would I care about two consenting adults entering a legally-sanctioned relationship? Who cares what sex they are? It's disturbing how similar the arguments of people against gay marriages are to the arguments of people back in the day who considered who thought it was unsafe and "immoral" to end segregation. They also made retarded forecasts about how evil the world would become should blacks be allowed the rights of others. Like i said, let Catholics and their friends go molest little boys while they preach about the MORALITY OF MARRIAGE (how funny is that?) and let unions be official and legal with rights and benefits for same-sex couples. Let's do this quickly and forget about it so we can take a look at the REAL problems in the U.S like people expected to live off of 5.15 an hour while the politicans who argue for this rate make off with hundreds of thousands while cheating on their wives. Or how about the open door between Mexico and this country that could allow Islamic militants to waltz right in? THOSE are issues. Instead we've got a bunch of zombies waving their fingers at two women who want to be together and fuck with strap-ons. OOOO here comes the Apocalypse. Wake the fuck up.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 02:10 AM (xM3Dg)

43 Greyrooster: Did you notice how the un-narrow-minded people who disagree with us think that we "should all go live on other planets"?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 16, 2005 07:32 AM (x+5JB)

44 We Catholics are trying to rebuild after our Church was Hijacked by a very large group of homosexual Priests. These criminals engaged in very normal homo actiity. That is, they felt they had license to have sex with anything and everything they came in contact with. Igor, these men were not practicing the Catholic faith, but rather were just taking your faith, the gay adgenda to its ultimate destination. They should all be locked away and never see the light of day again. Rest assured that real Catholics will never let this happen in the future, We know the enemy and it is the gay left and it's attitude that having sex with anyone and anything is not only a right, it's to be forced down the throat of everyone. To resist it to be called hate. What Bullshit! I could really give a shit what two perverts do in their own home.But thats not enough for the homo advocates. Ass screwing has to be taught as a virtue in public schools (thank God for Catholic schools). We have to have a parade in every May in Seattle to celebrate sodomy. The Boy Scouts are pressured to accept sodomy as acceptable behavior. It goes on and on. The peroblem is not that you want Gay marrige, you fags want it all,hook ,line and sinker. It's a dishonest arguement to say gay marriage is all you want. Having standards of behavior is not hate.

Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 08:40 AM (6krEN)

45 Brad: Remember that the number of individuals who committed these misdeeds--who, according to the logical conclusion of some on the Left, should have a "right" to do these things, just like people should have the "right" to marry a person of one's own gender--is a small fraction of the total number of clerics, and that the problem was certainly not limited exclusively to the R.C. Church. The Church has endured problems/scandals/attacks for 2000--what other institution has lasted as long?--and will, according to Christ's promise, endure until the end of time. The pendulum swings both ways. Many of these abusive clerics became priests during the free and easy 60's, when (sadly) many societal and ecclesiastical morays, both in and out of the Church, were looosened. Notice haw most are in their late 50's, 60's, or 70's? The pendulum is swinging back, and we now have thousands of younger priests who seek a return to orthodoxy. Take care.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 16, 2005 10:44 AM (x+5JB)

46 John Smith was the only Protestant to move into a large Catholic neighbourhood. On this 1st day of Lent John was outside grilling a big juicy steak on his grill. Meanwhile all his neighbours were eating cold tuna fish for supper. This went on each Friday of Lent. On the last Friday of Lent the neighbourhood men all got together and decided that something had to be done about JOhn, he was tempting them to eat meat each Friday and they couldnt take it anymore. They decided to try and convert John to be a Catholic. They went over and spoke to him and were delighted when he agreed to join them and become a catholic. They took him to church and the Priest sprinkled some water over him and said 'you were born a baptist,your were raised a baptist and now you are a Catholic. The men were so relieved, now their biggest temptation was solved. The next year rolled round and the 1st Friday of Lent came, just as they were sitting down to their tuna fish the smell of steak cooking on a grill came. They couldnt believe their noses WHAT WAS GOING ON! They called each other up and decided to meet at Johns deciding he must have forgot it was the 1st Friday of Lent. The group arrived just in time to see John standing over his grill with a small jug of water, He was sprinkling the water over his steak saying "you were born a cow, you were raised a cow and now your ... a fish'. JUst to lighten the mood!

Posted by: sparky at March 16, 2005 01:20 PM (F1nba)

47 And these dark days, we NEED to! Thanks, Sparky.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 16, 2005 01:50 PM (x+5JB)

48 Sorry to all if I was too dark. I'll go back to working on spelling and wait for the Rooster to catch up with Igor.

Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 02:43 PM (NzgK/)

49 "Ass screwing has to be taught as a virtue in public schools (thank God for Catholic schools)." Really? W....you know what, I'm not even going to dignify you with an answer to this stupidity. "We have to have a parade in every May in Seattle to celebrate sodomy." None of those parades celebrate sodomy you stupid fuck. They celebrate homosexuality. I will never participate in a gay pride parade I don't much care for them, but they are a right given to a group to express unity between each other. This obviously threatens you a lot. I think you are probably a closet homo. "The Boy Scouts are pressured to accept sodomy as acceptable behavior." You expect anyone to take you seriously when you spit retarded trash like this? Nobody pressured the boy scouts to accept sodomy. They were pressured to allow homosexuals to be scout leaders. And that does not mean that they would be allowed to discuss with the kids their sexual behavior, just like hetero scout leaders are not permitted to talk about what they do to women in bed. Brad it's a shame that people like you waste space and oxygen on this Earth having been born in this time and age when you're still so stubborn and stupid that you say things like the ones I just quoted. I wish you had been born back in the 1800s when you could have lived out your closed-minded life and wouldn't have had to worry about the rights of anyone accept white, heterosexual males. Also, I think you were molested by your father. I don't doubt that he's a Catholic.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 03:43 PM (xM3Dg)

50 Oh, sorry, I missed this gem from Brad as well: "Having standards of behavior is not hate." And these standards should be set by people like you? Hahahahahahaha.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 03:47 PM (xM3Dg)

51 Dammit! Another valuable piece of intellectual thought from Brad that i missed: "...is not only a right but to be forced down the throats of everyone." Oh really? You mean like when religious nuts say that prayer should be taught in public schools? You mean like when religious nuts demand that creation be taught along-side evolution in SCIENCE class? And others who want the right to teach ONLY creationism? You mean like when religious nuts stand around on college campuses across the nation and hold up signs listing everyone that's going to Hell. Let's see, bikers, masons, gays, jews, muslims, alcoholics. The list is endless. You're talking about forcing things down people's throats? Did you know that it is the duty of all Christians and Catholics to preach and teach the word of God to non-believers? Did you know that? Sorry to burst your gay-hating bubble but guess what, gays don't give a shit about you knowing or caring about sodomy. They just want the rights to do as they wish in privacy. You are a senseless fool. And yes YPB, I do wish the likes of you and Brad be sent to other planets. You can have a Catholic planet where everyone believes in God and denounces everyone and everything else, but at least those people won't cause you any legislative problems. There can be a straight, non-catholic planet where homophobes try to solidify and reaffirm to themselves their gender roles by screwing as many of the opposite sex as possible. You'd love it there. Meanwhile, Earth would be mostly populated by people who have some fucking common sense and see the REAL problems in their respective areas instead of spitting unbelievable gab like the crap that comes out of Brad and xtremewing's mouth by claiming that homosexuals are actively trying to force people to commit sodomy (wtf??) and that Rome fell because of gays and that if homos are allowed to marry people will start marrying and fucking animals. What an intelligent bunch you are.

Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 04:01 PM (xM3Dg)

52 Igor, I could try to spread the word to you, but something tells me you don't want to hear it.Guess I'm lucky I don't depend on you for the air I breath. You have a lot of anger bud, sort of proves my point. You have to buy the whole program hook,line and sinker or you get the kind of response above. Well, can't hang at the bath house all day, back to work.

Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 04:19 PM (NzgK/)

53 I like this blog and want it to get to 2 million. Best way seems to be to just pull the tail of a fruit cake and it's worth 500 hits.

Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 04:25 PM (NzgK/)

54 Igor: I am sorry that you are a fucking faggot. Not my fault that you cannot control your weird unnatural cravings. Fight to control the sick demon that rules your emotions. I know you are sick. You know it to. I don't know what causes this unnatural, sick, disturbing thing in your brain. Men fucking men is sick. Sorry, but thats the truth. control yourself, get help, do not give in to the sick emotions that now control you. Fight to be man instead of a sick depraved animal. As a last resort move to a muslim country. They will end your pain for you.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 16, 2005 09:31 PM (K/qjk)

55 Never thought I would see the day that some idiot could say the men fucking eack other in the ass has to do with culture. If it does, its a depraved, sick culture. Depraved individuals like Igor give substance to the muslim hate American culture cause. How sick do we get before curing this disease? Until now, I hoped that ignoring them was the best way. I wonder if this cancer should be removed?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 16, 2005 09:40 PM (K/qjk)

56 Igor: Igor.Just like in the Frankenstein movies. Igor is a sick monster. Talk about Bourbons father? I'll bet a dime to a dollar his father is proud of him. I'll also bet your father is ashamed to call a sick bastard like you son. Or is fucking your father in ass also acceptable in your sick way of life. Or how about your son? Sick, Sick, Sick. Even Hitler had a few good ideas. And I am not referring to the Jewish solution.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 16, 2005 09:51 PM (K/qjk)

57 Y.B.P.: I'm not basing my views on ANYTHING from Boston. Me: Ok, then you refuse to do the research I suggested, which automatically makes your view nothing more than personal bias. Y.B.P.: It [the NT] has been the foundation of Western Civilizeation for the same number of years [2000]. Me: Never mind the numerous contributions by Arabic culture. The moslems ruled much of Southern and Eastern Europe until the mid-to-late 1400's. And that's just the tip of the iceburg. Tell me, YBP, do you have *any* beliefs that are based on historical fact, or do they all come from religious and political dogma?

Posted by: frank-o at March 16, 2005 10:18 PM (uU9Zv)

58 By the way, has anyone else pointed out yet that the law Kramer voided is *not* in the state constitution? It is part of the family code, which is *not* a section of the California Constitution. Is is false, therefore, to state that he ruled the state contitution as unconstitutional, or to state that he exceeded his authority, or anything else along those lines.

Posted by: frank-o at March 16, 2005 10:23 PM (uU9Zv)

59 I'm sure Caligula said,hey,this is the 4th century(or whatever) nothing bad can come from having sex with another man.Alexander the Great did it,so why not.Why do the Romans no longer rule the world? anyone?

Posted by: xtremewing at March 17, 2005 04:15 AM (F++qI)

60 Hi Frank-O: <> I'm familiar with the phenomenon that some women chose to live together in the 19th century, either as friends or as sexual partners. There were also the Transcendentalists and Brook Farm in some suburb of Boston--Roxbury? (What is it about Massachusetts?)I never stated that some people throughout the ages have done things contrary to the prevalent cultural norms of the day. I stated that marriage since its inception has been between a man and a women. This is the norm--not "Boston marriages." "Never mind the numerous contributions by Arabic culture. The moslems ruled much of Southern and Eastern Europe until the mid-to-late 1400's. And that's just the tip of the iceburg." I never stated that the Arab culture is devoid of certain accomplishments. I stated that historians agree that Western Civilization is largely based upon the best of the Roman and Greek civilizations. What has this to do with my argument that marriage has long been held to be between a man and a woman? If anything, pointing out the fact that a nice chunk of land had been dominated my Moslems would back up my claims, as they hold this same view, no? <> Frank, the veracity of the Gospels is evident, in that their authors swear under oath that they are true. St. John says, "I testify to everyone that hears these words." St. Paul also says "I speak the truth. I lie not..." Sworn statements are accepted as evidence in modern courts of law. Courts don't need photographic proof of someone writing a will in order to accept it. Therefore I accept them. These men had nothing to gain by writing such things but ridicule and worse. They were all martyred for their beliefs. There deaths are documented by their followers in the first century. Historians like Tacitus and Josephus have recorded Christ's existence--much to the chagrin of some liberal biblical scholars (!) who defy His existence. Where is the sworn statement that Washington crossed the Delaware? And yet we have no problem believing it. I truly wish you the very best.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 17, 2005 07:44 AM (x+5JB)

61 Let me see here. We have some homo loving Ruskie who ran from his own homeland. To cowardly to stay and help make his country a better place. So he moves to England where his homo bullshit wasn't accepted. He then moves to America and now tells us how to act. Igor you homeless shit. Go back, we don't want you and we don't need you. Americans don't need advice from those that can't hack it in their own countries. Who the fuck you think you are telling Americans what they should think and how they should act. You dumb Russian shit. You came here because it's a better place to live. It's a better place to live because Americans made it that way. Not shit like you who abandoned their own countries. You are pro war because the Muslim clerics know what to do with unappreciative faggots. Simply protecting your own sick desires. We don't give a shit about what a Russian faggot thinks. GO BACK and preach to your own. If they will have you.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 08:26 AM (DAWnL)

62 Barney Frank-o: I guess if the muslims were so successful in the past the reason for their regression to being some of the most backward people in the world must fall on their religion. They most certainly are not a viable contributor to modern society. If they have the racial ability to progress the only factor keeping them in the 3rd world is their religion. SO: Backward Islam out of America.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:12 PM (CBNGy)

63 Let us not forget Igor the Ruskie was raised as a commie. Therefore, many of his stupid ideals come from his commie background. Didn't work there. Won't work here. Commie Ruskies out of America.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:19 PM (CBNGy)

64 Barney Frank-O: If you admire them so much, go to them. Dress like them. Eat like them. Pray for the destruction of America like them. I like to know who to shoot at. Pick a side prick. Then be a man and stand behind it.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:37 PM (CBNGy)

65 i wana have iccription in instition in california

Posted by: abd el hafid ouanadi at June 14, 2005 03:51 PM (KGQMV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Surreal Life: Beirut

Okay, can some one please turn the postmodern dial to off in Lebanon now? (via Instapundit)

Posted by: Rusty at 03:48 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Spring Break

Just a reminder....I'm on Spring Break so that's why posting is light.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Abu Ali Pleads Not Guilty to Bush Assassination Plot

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the Virginian man linked to an al Qaeda plot to assassinate President Bush has plead 'not guilty' to all six counts in a Federal indictment.

Abu Ali was valedictorian at a Saudi funded Wahhabist high school in Alexandria, VA. The alleged terrorist also attended and taught at a mosque with ties to The Muslim Brotherhood, a group dedicated to the imposition of Islamic law and the return of the caliphate. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:39 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 876 words, total size 6 kb.

1 "mosque that teaches women to put on the veil" Gasp! "Ali was studying Islam in Mecca at the time of his arrest" Wow amazing evidence! "War is justified to respond to aggression or to protect the weak and the meek as we mentioned or to fight against occupation to protect your homeland or to fight injustices committed" Wow! Is this really all you have got?

Posted by: sonic at March 14, 2005 01:56 PM (Gsn6c)

2 I had to laugh when you mentioned the tone of Bin Laden's voice as compared to this guy. Now I know we have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of just about anything but do we have to have freedom of Wahhabists and Sharia Law? That's not freedom at all. In relation to this school, they take away our freedom to live, so is that really freedom? It certainly does not take away my fears of having terrorist anywhere in our country when they're going to these special schoolsl Why are we letting them funtion at all? Sorry, but their freedoms should be discarded and our freedoms kept free. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 14, 2005 01:59 PM (PEKrh)

3 Sonic. Perhaps you should click through the links at the bottom of the post. There is a reason jihadis do what they do, they are taught it. Abu Ali was indoctrinated growing up. To feign surprise, shock, and outrage that he has been arrested is duplicitious at best.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 14, 2005 02:05 PM (JQjhA)

4 Got him going both ways eh Rusty, if he admits it, well he is guilty, if he denies hit, ah thats how jihadis are trained he must be guilty. heard of a witchunt?

Posted by: sonic at March 14, 2005 02:17 PM (Gsn6c)

5 Yes, I have. And that is relevant because...???

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 14, 2005 02:26 PM (JQjhA)

6 Oh, wait, I get it. Muslims are automatically 'not guilty' because, you know, Islam IS the Religion of Peace and all that......

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 14, 2005 02:32 PM (JQjhA)

7 Innocent until proven guilty, or is that an un-American concept these days?

Posted by: sonic at March 14, 2005 04:40 PM (Gsn6c)

8 "Guilty until proven innocent" is a bit harsh. I'm willing to go with "deported until proven innocent."

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 14, 2005 04:57 PM (obGyP)

9 Innocent IN COURT until proven guilty. This, as you know, is not a court.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 14, 2005 05:03 PM (JQjhA)

10 Muslims wish to live by muslim rules. Try them by muslim rules. RAGHEADS OUT OF AMERICA

Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 07:18 PM (CBNGy)

11 Oh, great. Nutters from both sides.

Posted by: Petoht at March 14, 2005 08:51 PM (oeUjM)

12 ""Guilty until proven innocent" is a bit harsh. I'm willing to go with "deported until proven innocent."" Why should we deport US citizens?

Posted by: actus at March 14, 2005 11:31 PM (5Lqt9)

13 Ask Meyer Lansky.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 04:42 AM (/GhVC)

14 Better yet, ask Israel!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 07:46 AM (x+5JB)

15 Sonic must have a learning disability,The Jihadis' want us dead or converted to Islam(that peaceful religion).That means they want me dead.Accoording to Sonic we should just ignore these people,like they are the loony uncle down the hall.Get on with our lives,go shopping and then WHAM a bomb goes off killing thousands...yeah good idea.

Posted by: xtremewing at March 15, 2005 10:50 PM (F++qI)

16 Why deport US citizens. Because in their hearts they are not US citizens. They are not Americans. They only use citizenship as a ploy. They don't live the part. They don't act the part. They don't look the part. They cannot be trusted to place America's interests before their religion. Because we made a horrible mistake by letting them into this country. The way to correct that mistake is deport them out of this country. Muslims cannot live side by side with civilized religions. Check out the entire world. They create problems where ever they go. We have enough problems already. Even if some are good people they spawn the terrorists. The terrorists come from members of this backward assed religion. If they moved here and did not practice this religion then OK. But thats not the case is it? Members of Islam should not be allowed to immigrate to this country that was founded on Christian principles. It will not work. Take a look at Asia, Africa, Europe. What makes anyone think it will work here when it hasn't worked anywhere else. Pure foolishness. And who the hell thinks we need more people. The founders of this country were not thinking of ragheads when they wrote the constitution. Muslims were not a group that our founding fathers considered when this country was founded. Islam out of America. In fact I believe it should be illegal to practice Islam in America.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 12:48 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Giuliana Sgrena Admits Hostage Hoax

Sir George over at AIR has this from The Times (UK). Several important questions need answering:

But then the report mentioned a message from a group named the Jihad, saying that if Berlusconi did not withdraw Italian troops from Iraq by the next evening, she would be killed. Â“I believed it, even though my guards told me they didnÂ’t want to kill me,Â” she says.

If Sgrena was in no danger, why was a ransom paid? Sgrena's hostage takers never threatened her life or safety in any of their public communiques.

One kidnapper told her they had a right to liberate their country. Â“YouÂ’re telling me,Â” she shot back. Â“IÂ’ve always said that and IÂ’m not an Iraqi.Â”

Liberate from whom? From the Italians? Italy has 3,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. If so, isn't encouraging violent opposition to Italian occupation treason?

Â“If you want to kill me, you might as well do it now . . . In any case itÂ’s easier to kill a woman than to go and fight the Americans in the street.Â”

Read: Go kill Americans. Nice. I suppose some one is going to tell me about 'legitimate resistance' and yada yada. Of course, 'legitimate resistance' to Sgrena and likes means 'any one opposed to the US anywhere.'

She did suggest that she appeal to the Italian people to demonstrate in favour of a withdrawal of the countryÂ’s 3,000 troops. But when the guards filmed her, they told her the film wasnÂ’t dramatic enough. She was a hostage, they insisted, she must be more convincing and ordered her to make a direct appeal to her boyfriend of 25 years, Pier Scolari. For the first time, Sgrena broke down in tears.

Wait...so the film was her idea? Confederate Yankee noticed the day her hostage video was released that she appeared to be directing the film. Now she admits it. Great. Next we'll learn the conversation at hostage headquarters went something like this.

Achmed: We demand 1 million lira for Sgrena's release! (pinky to mouth)
Sgrena: Er, 1 million lira is like $700 U.S. dollars.
Achmed: Oh? Really.....
Sgrena: Yeah........
Achmed: Ok....We demand 1 billion lira! (pinky finger to mouth)
Sgrena:....
Achmed: What? Too much??.....
Sgrena: Well.....er.....better. That's like $700,000 U.S.
Achmed:.....
Sgrena:......
Achmed:.......So?
Sgrena: Wouldn't you be able to fund more Iraqi 'Minutemen' to kill the Zionist-Crusader forces with like a trillion lira......???
Achmed:.......
Sgrena:...............
Achmed:You know we invented the zero, don't you?

Posted by: Rusty at 11:40 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Nuke Bomb Plans Posted by American at Terrorist Website (Updated)

Via Aaron at Internet Haganah the alarming news that plans for a do-it-yourself nuclear bomb have been posted at an Islamic forum. What is even more alarming is that the person posting the H-bomb plans is an American of Palestinian descent and posts the plans from a public library in the U.S. I suppose that the ACLU will cry bloody-murder should the FBI check the activity logs of whichever library this turns out to have come from.

Here is some of the message that he posts:

the nature of my job allowes me to read some confidantial studies presented by retired fbi ....dhs ..cia agents...etc...and i want to participate in bringiing the usa nazi zionist goverment down

He then drones on and on about how the jihadis need to watch out, the Americans are tracking them, etc.

The story was reported in the Arab News, the Saudi publication. That story, whether in error or because the Saudis believed this was too hot for public consumption, said the message was about how to build a 'dirty bomb'. It was not, it was how to build an atomic weapon.

Aside from the nuke, though, they seem to get it right. The same American poster also instructs his fellow jihadis on the use of other WMD:

The member, whose expertise veers toward chemical warfare, shows a marked emphasis in making gas bombs. He introduces the subject by naming the different gases used for these purposes, and follows it up with their reaction with the elements, effects and their impact, before concluding by telling all where to buy them....
At the end of his session, the writer, who asked his followers to go for jihad, received a comment from another writer asking him to give more details as they needed it to start making those gases in Iraq. Â“We need simple quick ways to make them, for us to quickly fight the Americans and the great traitor Allawi,Â” said the comment.

Some one in the Pentagon better be reading this and remind the troops to keep those chemical suits handy.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the poster left his e-mail address-- let_us_reason2005@yahoo.com

UPDATE: Wow, see why the blogosphere is so great. Checking out the comments and all the various links it turns out that the actual H-Bomb plans are a hoax. *Sigh of relief*

Even so, two questions remain:

a) Are the chemical weapon instructions also a hoax? The Arab News version seems to indicate that the majority of this person's posts are about the use of chemical weapons.

b) Did the poster believe the H-bomb instructions were real? Some are accusing us of jumping the gun on this. The atomic weapon instructions were only part of a long series of posts by an individual who claims he wishes to help the jihadis.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:40 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.

1 "usa nazi zionist goverment" HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! What an Idiot! How can you be a nazi and a zionist at the same time?!

Posted by: Red Wolf at March 13, 2005 10:11 AM (i75th)

2 I hope you passed this on to the FBI, Rusty. You already have their address. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 13, 2005 10:20 AM (PEKrh)

3 The FBI can't be everywhere so it's up to us who find these things to report them. Please report it. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 13, 2005 10:23 AM (PEKrh)

4 Zionist/nazi. Shows just how dumb these idiots are. Why do we educate them?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 11:40 AM (CBNGy)

5 Um... perhaps worth noting, the "instruction" piece in question has been floating around the net since at least 1994. See here in the google Usenet groups archive. I'll also point out the original is a humor piece-- as the "Hustler" reference (intact in the reposting) should make clear. And a quick peek at more respectable sources highlights the idiocy in it-- This page from the Argonnne National Lab web site gives a phase diagram showing that at ambient temperature and pressure, UF6 is not a gas, but a solid, making the bicyle-pump-and-bucket centerfuge not just ineffective but unworkable. So, some terrorists could have nuclear ambitions. Before my morning coffee, so could I-- and I'd have a better chance of realizing those ambitions before the pot finishes brewing than this fruitcake ever would using plans like this.

Posted by: abb3w at March 13, 2005 01:45 PM (Q0lWV)

6 abb3w: I agree with you. But should you have told them? Can you just see this bunch of idiots sitting on the floor with bicyle pumps and buckets? This is cartoon stuff.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 08:29 PM (CBNGy)

7 Down here in Mississippi the glorious Knights of the Klu Klux Klan stays with low tech stuff. The noose. Doesn't sound very efficient but theres a lot oak trees in Mississippi. But think about it, ropes are hard to trace and the uniforms are cheap. That is until the ragheads started buying up all our white sheets. That's what makes America great, a competive market fair to all.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 08:39 PM (CBNGy)

8 Oh dear, looks like someone got fooled by an obvious hoax, Poor Jawa, just so ready to jump on Muslims you got well caught out.

Posted by: sonic at March 13, 2005 08:50 PM (Gsn6c)

9 For my part I will say the hoax is obvious only if you view the original post on the original forum. Something I decided not to do as I did not want my IP logged at a Muslim extremeist forum. If one relies on the arabnews.com story for the content of the post then there is no way to tell that it is the same old hoax that has been floating around for years. Ditto the Internet Haganah piece. There is no mention of bicycle pumps, ropes and buckets, or the 'H-Bomb' test. When read in its entirety it is easily seen as a hoax. Should've visited the original forum and didn't, but that makes my guilty of being overly cautious, not gullible.

Posted by: GoldFalcon at March 13, 2005 09:09 PM (LCCTJ)

10 But not overly cautious enough to do some checking before putting this piece of nonsense online? Are you going to post a retraction and get in touch with all the people who are linking to the story?

Posted by: sonic at March 13, 2005 09:20 PM (Gsn6c)

11 Sonic: Would a dumbassed liberal or muslin post a retraction?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 10:33 PM (CBNGy)

12 Way to go Doc! God makes some interesting characters, including, but not limited to, your "Commenters." Yar. Keel haul 'em I say!

Posted by: ZiPpo at March 14, 2005 07:45 AM (P7XXv)

13 ok, I know this is really not on topic but last Friday, TWICE they brought up dirty bombs and nukes during Nascar Racing. I almost had a fit. There are 160,000 usually at these races and that number does not include drivers, nascar monitors or the pit crew. I'm thinking to myself "Great, give them another idea" where loss of life would be tremendous. What jerks to briing up another idea that maybe they hadn't thought of yet. I yelled at my tv and if I could remember the people who mentioned it (on Fox) I'd sure give them a piece of my mind - or what's left of it anyway. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 14, 2005 11:39 AM (PEKrh)

14 A failure to check readily available primary sources is an indication of a careless researcher. Why worry about IP logging? Concerned about the Jihadists, or the NSA/FBI? Odds are, the jihadists and feds alike can both figure out that each has much higher priority targets than you or me. Those who can't see that are closer to paranoia than simple caution. I'd agree mentioning the potential target a NASCAR rally represents is a stupid idea... but my reasons are different. And yeah, the idea of jihadists actually trying this recipe amused me, but it seemed unlikely (getting radioactives requires more brains than that), while people wasting time on this seriously seemed more likely. I fear the impacts of irrational panic from the underinformed public far more than the impact of terrorists growing marginally more competent. There have been recipies for drugs, explosives, poisons, and nuclear doomsday devices floating the internet since well before the world wide web. Geeks like things that go boom, it seems... or maybe it's just the American geeks who've been dominant for so long. Anyway, most of the recipies, like the old dead-tree "Anarchist's Cookbook" (ISBN 097-445890-2), just tend to fail... or get you dead in a hurry partway through.

Posted by: abb3w at March 14, 2005 05:03 PM (7KIjM)

15 Wonder why American Geeks have been dominate for so long?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 06:45 PM (CBNGy)

16 cindy-you think they haven't thought of a neck car race on their own? Sonic-you are still a dumb ass.

Posted by: dave at March 15, 2005 10:38 AM (DHVuR)

17 Dave comes in with the best comment of the day.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 16, 2005 09:08 PM (K/qjk)

18 I was once going to a NASCAR race. They wouldn't let me in. I still have all my teeth.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 08:42 AM (DAWnL)

19 To all you simple minded humorless cry baby liberal homos. IT WAS A JOKE.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 08:43 AM (DAWnL)

20 Thanks for the informative report.

Posted by: Glenn Madden at July 17, 2005 09:42 PM (AoVAW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blog Sabbath Caption Contest Winners

Here are the winners to yesterday's caption contest. Winners are chosen arbitrarily by me.

1) Eric at Vince Aut Morire:

Hugo: You're more anti-American!
Jacques: Non! You're more anti-American!
Hugo: I insist! You're more anti-American!
Jacques: Non! You are!
Hugo: No! You are!
Jacques: I surrender!

2) Ricardo Verde:

.....expressing mutual condolence on the loss of Moe.

3) Frank Villon of You've Been Told:

Jacques: Embrasse-moi, mon petit ÃƒÂ©talon hispanique!
Hugo: Besame mucho, cabron francÃƒÂ©s!

Special Mention to Brian Blazevic of New Eagle for gratuitous use of the term 'hot karl'

Cowardice and Petulance embrace after agreeing to keep Venezuelan oil away from America - and a "hot karl" just off camera.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:24 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Morning Linkfest

Here are a few good morning reads. I'm on Spring Break so posting will be light.

Giuliana Sgrena 'demanding' answers from US government.

Good news from Iraq--civilians helping the military.

US rendition program a success.

Chris Short is at Sea World and has a touching story of a tribute to our troops.

The Carnivorous Conservative has the story of Iwo Jima. Very cool. My grandfather was a Marine killed in the Marianas campaign and is buried in the Punch Bowl.

Hundred Percenter interviews John Hawkins--something of a role reversal.

Decison '08 now laying odds on Hilary Clinton's run.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

March 12, 2005

Blog Sabbath Caption Contest

Caption this photo of Jacques Chirac hugging Hugo Chavez. The winner gets this shiny quarter and a free plug.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:16 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Sgrena's House of Cards Begins to Fall

Go to Google News. Do a quick search for 'Sgrena'. Notice all the headlines questioning Sgrena's veracity? Now breathe big sigh of relief.

Oh, and check this out via Flopping Aces. Italy is telling Sgrena shut shut her pie-hole. Do you think it was the constant changing of the shooting story or the tales of the US using nuclear weapons in Iraq that they are concerned with? News.com.au:

ITALY'S justice minister has urged former hostage Giuliana Sgrena to stop making "careless" accusations after being shot by US forces in Baghdad, saying she had already caused enough grief.
Ms Sgrena has repeatedly suggested US soldiers shot her on purpose and said today she had little faith in a joint investigation by Italy and the United States into the "friendly fire" incident.
"She has created enormous problems for the Government and also caused grief that perhaps was better avoided," Justice Minister Roberto Castelli told reporters in Bologna.

Bolagna? Yeah, that about sums it up.

Moonbat Alert Update: uruknet has written some pretty nasty things about Charles Johnson and myself in the past. Check out their new theory on what really happpened:

Adding it all up, it appears that John Negroponte became aware that Giuliana Sgrena was leaving Iraq with dangerous information about what American forces had been up to in committing war crimes in Falluja. Negroponte's experience in Honduras (12) gave him a certain expertise in covering up human rights violations, and he ordered his own personal bodyguard to assassinate Sgrena in a staged incident which was supposed to look like the usual problem at an American checkpoint in Iraq.

Man, that's classic. You know, there's funny and then there's funny. This is funny.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:16 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Spring Break Blogging

It's Spring Break around here. I'm going to try to do some academic work over the break. Contrary to popular belief, the Middle East is not my field of expertise.

As I explained on the radio the other night, I put a pretty big wall of seperation between my professional writing and my blog writing. To be honest, I get kind of annoyed at some bloggers who wear their academic credentials on their coat sleeves. As if the type of work that we publish on our blogs are somehow related to our academic disciplines. They are not.

My blog writing has gotten more intense as of late, but I've allowed my professional research and writing fall off quite a bit.

I'll be posting, but posting will be much lighter than usual.

UPDATE: In lieu of reading posts, why not offer some good vibes and a prayer for Brian B. Looks like he's going to have to be the sole bread winner for awhile. Welcome to the club, man. I've been supporting Mrs. Shackleford for going on 4 years now. It aint easy, but it's worth it.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:55 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

March 11, 2005

Are the Italians on to Sgrena?

Interesting development, Sgrena being questioned by police AGAIN. Hmmmmm, could it be all the inconsistencies in her tale? AP:

Meanwhile, Italian prosecutors conducting their own investigation on Thursday questioned former Italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena again in the Rome military hospital where she is recovering from a shoulder wound sustained in the March 4 shooting.

Ok, I have a big date with Mrs. Shackleford tonight. Ciao.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:13 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Australian Newspaper Plagiarizes Jawa Report

I'm not complaing, though. As long as the word on Sgrena gets out I'm happy. Need I remind new readers that I've been bitch-slapping Sgrena since the day she was taken hostage? Check it out.

Oh and speaking of plagiarism: calling Ward Churchill!!

Posted by: Rusty at 03:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok, More Sgrena than you ever thought possible

Wait, so even the Italians didn't know of Sgrena's release?

Giuliana Sgrena photoshop contest.

Sgrena, the musical.

Stalin vs. Bukharin--Sgrena's take.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeff Gannon Was Real Journalist

I'm tired of disproving the lies of a lady who claims we nuked Iraq (you know, Giulana Sgrena). I'm thinking that maybe what this blog needs is some more Jeff Gannon? Confederate Yankee has more. I apologize in advance over his lack of nude pictures.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

NPR Misses Sgrena's Big Lie

NPR ran a six minute segment of an interview with Giuliana Sgrena yesterday. Sylvia Poggioli, in typical NPR fashion, let's Sgrena's inconsistencies pass. Here is a transcript of the lie I caught Sgrena telling:

(Poggioli's voice) She [Sgrena] denies the U.S. military account that the Italians' car was speeding, that soldiers made hand signals, and flashed warning lights to get it to stop.
(Sgrena's voice then a translation) Suddenly we were riddled by gunfire, but the lights went on only after we had been hit.

Had Poggioli been doing her job and checked Sgrena's story with one of the versions of her story she told in the past, she would have immediately caught the lie. Here is what Sgrena says in her own Il Manifesto article:

The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired

Which is it Sgrena? The US says they attempted to slow the vehicle down by shining a warning light at the car. Sgrena originally admits that this is the case, but then changes her mind later. Why? Because the tale she tells NPR is much more damning than the orignial tale she told which on this one point meshes with the US version.

According to the division, the patrol attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots in front of the car."

We've already accounted for her lies here and here and how they simply do not mesh with the the physical evidence. But many of her inconsistencies can be accounted for as mere differences of perception. This one, though, is an out-and-out lie.

Can some one please remind me why US taxpayers are paying Sylvia Poggioli's salary if she believes her job is to smear the good name of US soldiers and repeat the lies and inconsistencies of a woman actively working for their deaths?

UPDATE: Captain Ed notices more evolution in the Sgrena story. With each day, her story cahnges and gets worse and worse.

UPDATE II: Right-wing Nuthouse on the same page. OCC chronicle speculates on what I have been saying since the beginning.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:18 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 3 kb.

1 And how do you explain that the 8 holes, (and not hundreds as sgrena said initially), are all on the right side of the car?

Posted by: humpty at March 11, 2005 10:37 AM (fITpd)

2 Er, how is that relevant?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 11, 2005 10:38 AM (JQjhA)

3 Why continue this. The commie bitch got her 15 minutes while causing the death of what was apparently a good man. If she hadn't gone to Iraq looking for trouble the man would be alive. That's the whole story in a nutshell. Today Pakistan has warned northern tribal areas against hiding Al Queda terrorists. Says will take military action if it continues. Now thats good news. Spanish clerics issue fatwa against Osama the asshole. A start.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 10:48 AM (CBNGy)

4 Oh ...... this is some kind of surprise that NPR missed something like that??

Posted by: Chris at March 11, 2005 10:52 AM (YOrMO)

5 Yeah! That commie Berlusconi, too, is lying, saying that the car was moving slowly. I think they all are conspiring to defeat the United States in it's sacred task of getting rid of all those who disagree with America's point of vue. But I'm sure they won't prevail: America was born to rule!

Posted by: V Vieira at March 11, 2005 11:02 AM (sEaV/)

6 You may not be awar of it but Sylvia haa been on the UN payroll as a consultant/PR person for the last several years. Not sure of the term but started when Bill was Pres. She has a strong anti-America bias.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 11, 2005 12:48 PM (l5t6M)

7 That's MSM Liberal NPR, find out more on Fox!

Posted by: Mike at March 11, 2005 01:55 PM (ELnLC)

8 >>>"But I'm sure they won't prevail: America was born to rule!" No, America was destined to lead.

Posted by: Carlos at March 11, 2005 02:06 PM (8e/V4)

9 Mike, we are finding all we need to discredit Sgrena's stories from Italian media. So the silly comment about Fox News is a poor attempt to change the subject.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 11, 2005 02:18 PM (xauGB)

10 Carlos has it right, I think. Right now America is acting the part of England in 1941. Let's just hope Europe wakes up like America did.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 11, 2005 02:42 PM (JQjhA)

11 I hear she is now saying the shooting was from The rear and right. So, why are the holes in the front?

Posted by: John Anderson at March 11, 2005 03:13 PM (mza+h)

12 How did she manage to pick up handfulls of "bullets" in the back seat if there were only eight holes in the car? Where are all the holes (besides in her story, I mean.)

Posted by: Mumaw Quadaffi at March 11, 2005 03:40 PM (3bYDe)

13 V, you veer startlingly close to the question that's being stepped over about the reason Italy is raising such a ruckus over this event. The reason "they all are conspiring to defeat the United States" - setting aside the bizarre part about "it's sacred task of getting rid of all those who disagree with America's point of vue" - is because certain voices in Europe won't be happy until the US capitulates to the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately, they show no good reason for us doing so.

Posted by: tee bee at March 11, 2005 03:41 PM (q1JHF)

14 I'd ammend that post to end, "Unfortunately, they have no good reason for us doing so."

Posted by: tee bee at March 11, 2005 03:42 PM (q1JHF)

15 Works either way, TeeBee.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 11, 2005 08:46 PM (xauGB)

16 V Vieira: Maybe you are right. America was born to rule. A country composed of every race, religion and nationality is the only one with the collective knowledge to rule. Who wishes to oppose us. Do you wish to take on our military? Perhaps, just one of our groups. Who wishes to fight our white people? Anyone wish to take on our black people? How about our mexicans? Our Indians? Truth is any individual group or mixed group will kick your asses. Messing with America is stupid. Our diversity and ability to get the best of the world has made us the power we are. To think we will step down is dreaming. Take advantage of our goodness instead of our wrath because you haven't seen nothing yet. What foreign countries don't realize is that we are still a young country. Still growing in every way. If you keep calling me arrogant, someday I'll believe it and act the part. Beware of the big dog because you little dogs are beginning to annoy me. I may lift my leg and piss on you. We have an expression down here. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Know what that means? If you can't figure it out, just ask. Americans are always ready to help.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 12, 2005 12:17 AM (CBNGy)

17 greyrooster, intelligence seems to be lacking in your list of reasons why America was born to rule... V Vieira was pulling your legs... Since when is Berlusconi a commie???

Posted by: johnboy at March 13, 2005 09:42 AM (Un3RD)

18 You know. You're right. Forgive my lack of familarity with Berlusconi. Hell man, all these Italian names sound the same. Spagetti, manicotti, macaroni, rigatoni, antipasti, cacciatore, ziti, salami,fagioli, Berlusconi. Long as they taste good who cares? I'll leave it up to faggot Jim to see if Berlusconi tastes good. His bag. Not mine.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 12:32 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gone Fishing

I need a break. Going fishing.

UPDATE: Back early. Got skunked. Water level was much lower than I expected and wind was way up. Nice to get out, though.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Phillipines Paying Ransom for Hostage (Again): Roy Hallums-Libya Connection

INQ7 News reprints this Philippine Daily Inquirer
story:

AFTER a long silence, the captors of Roberto Tarongoy have released a video of their Filipino hostage which was aired by the Al-Jazeera Arab television network on Tuesday, the Department of Foreign Affairs said yesterday.
Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo, however, would not comment on reports that the video showed Tarongoy in an orange outfit -- a sign that he is nearing execution -- and that it conveyed the two conditions given for his release which the Philippines should meet in four days.
The hostage takers have reportedly demanded that the government recall all Filipino workers in Iraq and stop whatever cooperation it is giving to the United States military in Iraq.

Today the Philippines admits to paying ransom. Notice the Libya reference which is important. Daily Tribune (Philippines):

Once more, the Arroyo government is claimed to be negotiating the release of hostaged Filipino accountant Roberto Tarongoy by his captors, with a counter offer of $6 million, or $4 million short of the earlier $10 million demanded by the Iraqi rebels, a reliable source from the Department of Foreign Affairs told the Tribune yesterday.
It was not known whether President Arroyo will again be tapping Libya for the ransom money, although the source pointed out it is likely for her to seek the help of Saudi Arabia in raising the funds, as Mrs. Arroyo was reported to have done the Saudi government a Â“big favorÂ” by ordering the release from immigration detention of suspected al-Qaeda financier, Mohammed al-Sughayir...
The Philippine government also yesterday claimed to have identified the kidnappers of the Filipino accountant, but insisted it has only been negotiating with them through intermediaries.

Roberto Tarongoy was abducted along with his colleauge the American Roy Hallums on Nov. 1st of last year.

Digger reports that on "July 2004 the Philippine government reportedly paid $6 million for hostage Angelo De La Cruz. Of the $6 million for De La Cruz, $5 million is said to have come from Libya". This becomes very important in light of the statement made by Roy Hallums in a video released on January 25th (I transcripted the video here):

I am asking for the help of Arab rulers, especially President Muammar Gaddafi because he's known for helping those who are suffering.

The fact that Gaddafi has helped pay ransom in the past makes Roy Hallums' statement more clear.

So the Philippine government a) has identified the kidnappers b) is paying ransom.

a) If the kindappers have been identified then the Fillipino government has a moral obligation to turn that information over to the coalition forces. Coalition forces have freed a number of hostages in the past.

b) By paying ransom the Fillipino government funds terrorist activities which will lead to more death and destruction in Iraq and only encourage more hostage taking.

In related news friend of The Jawa Report and ex-wife of Roy, Susan Hallums was reminding the President of the plight of her husband and of American hostage Thomas Hamill. Susan is said to be in contact with both the Hamill family and the wife of Roberto Tarongoy. In response, the White House issued this statement:

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Hallums family. We are aware of the situation. Any time there is an American held hostage, it is a high priority for the U.S. government.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin. Digger has a lot more as well.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

Spain Surrendered to Terrorists One Year Ago Today

One year ago today an al Qaeda cell calling itself "the death smoke squad" bombed four seperate trains in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 and wounding over a thousand more. Al Qaeda had demanded Spain withdraw its troops from Iraq. As a response to the bombing, Spain did just that.

As a result of Spanish withdrawal from Iraq the terrorists began a new round of threats, hostage taking, and murder. Whether or not the Spanish people intended to cave to terrorists is irrelevant for the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi. They perceived Spain had given in to their demands therefore their strategy had worked.

Let's not forget that the goal of Islamic "terrorists" is not to "terrorize". The goal of Islamic terrorists is to restore the Caliphate to its maximum borders, which includes most of Spain.

Last night Muslim clerics in Spain issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, for inspiring the Madrid massacre. Let us not forget that many of these same clerics hope for the same goal as bin Laden--an Islamic state ruling Spain. They may disagree with the means of achieving the ends, but the ends would be a fascist state worse than anything Franco ever imposed.

Spain, we feel for your loss. Spain, we also condemn you for adding fuel to the fire of global jihad.

Blog reaction: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:31 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 3 kb.

1 And Spain, we commend you for adding some Latin flare to our hemisphere. Coochie coochie. But I must ask, what would Pizarro do (WWPD) now? Would he have backed down to a bunch of sandpeople, or would he have kicked some tail with his 17 men and a donkey, ransomed some prisoners, and melted minarets into gold? What happened to you, Spain... you used to be cool.

Posted by: Wine-aholic at March 11, 2005 08:52 AM (mJwYW)

2 D'oh, never mind. Late night last night...

Posted by: Venom at March 11, 2005 10:23 AM (dbxVM)

3 Is Spain turning sissy? Back in the good ole days they could kill thousands of natives armed with rocks. Club to death hundreds of chained British prisioners. Wait a minute. I just thought of something. Now days, the savages have weapons to fight back. Could this be the reason for their change in attitude?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 11:15 AM (CBNGy)

4 Good news, eh??? http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/spain/latest_developments/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20050311/ts_nm/security_spain_fatwa_dc_1

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 11, 2005 11:18 AM (x+5JB)

5 Bravo for Spaniards, who chose not to go on licking the ass of G.W Bush. 90% of the population against the american terrorism in Irak before the bombs, 90% after that. The democracy spoke against the irracionality of the war.

Posted by: lorddelsith at March 11, 2005 01:11 PM (uVl88)

6 Where's Franco when you need him?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 11, 2005 01:33 PM (x+5JB)

7 If the Spaniards had really wanted to honor the deaths of those who died in the train bombing, they would have strengthened their resolve, not caved in.

Posted by: Vonski at March 11, 2005 01:51 PM (AHaCg)

8 Let's do the math. 90% of the Spanish dissapproved US policies before the Iraq invasion. 90% of the Spanish dissapproved US policies after the Iraq invasion. The net changed is 0. Therefore, Bush's invasion of Iraq has not influenced Spanish public opion one bit. lordelsith, please call Bush an idiot. Give me the whipped cream and cherry.

Posted by: Charles at March 11, 2005 02:24 PM (mwUMN)

9 Spanish is an adjetive, not a noun

Posted by: lorddelsith at March 11, 2005 02:33 PM (uVl88)

10 Which is the relation between Iraq and terrorism? At least, before the invasion of Iraq, none. What have in common politically Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Both speak arabic?

Posted by: lorddelsith at March 11, 2005 02:39 PM (uVl88)

11 The problem with you, lordelsith, is that you confuse "terrorism" with al Qaeda. There are thousands of terrorist organizations in the world, al Qaeda only being the most famous. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. My post is clear on another point, "Whether or not the Spanish people intended to cave to terrorists is irrelevant for the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi. They perceived Spain had given in to their demands therefore their strategy had worked." That is, regardless of the message the Spanish intended to send, the one they sent was that they were weak and would give in to the demands of terrorists.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 11, 2005 03:06 PM (JQjhA)

12 Rusty, Is U.S going to invade Spain to exterminate Basques?

. Please, name any terrorist action worldwide sponsored by Saddam Hussein in the last 15 years. None ? Uhhh, some arguememts are so naif.

Posted by: lorddelsith at March 11, 2005 11:09 PM (uVl88)

13 lorddelsith, Dan Darling who posts at windsofchange.net and his own blog has detailed the links between Iraq and Al Queda. Additionally, he and others have detailed the connections between the Rahman group who performed the first WTC bombing and Iraqi intelligence. Even with that, you are deliberately setting up a false goalpost. Even if Iraq didn't support a specific terrorist act, there is plenty of evidence of Iraq's general support of terrorist groups. Your own ignorance isn't an argument.

Posted by: SPQR at March 11, 2005 11:28 PM (xauGB)

14 The US is going to invade Spain and put the only brave people on the pennisula in charge. The Basques. The muslims conquered the Spanish for 400 years, (before birth control, or condoms). They never conquered the Basques. My one and only trip to Spain I noticed some interesting architecture. Was confused. I seen the same building in Morroco. Have a nice day. Remember to pray 5 times. Why not practice? They're coming again. Same old weak spot. Spain, the gateway to Islam.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 11:41 PM (CBNGy)

15 Spanish is an adjetive. Not a noun. Says it all. Spanish is a noun. Not an adjective.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 11:45 PM (CBNGy)

16 "Whether or not the Spanish people intended to cave to terrorists is irrelevant for the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi. They perceived Spain had given in to their demands therefore their strategy had worked." Are we to be bound by the perceptions of bin laden and zarqawi too?

Posted by: actus at March 11, 2005 11:46 PM (5Lqt9)

17 Nah, Spain surrendered several days later when elections were held (the 14th I believe?). Remember the election for their surrender. For the 11th, remember the nearly 300 innocent civilians who died.

Posted by: Beck at March 12, 2005 01:53 AM (pmSUH)

18 Spain suffered and finally changed the government to match the will of the people. There was no surrender.

Posted by: Collin Baber at March 12, 2005 03:00 AM (fufbw)

19 Spaniard.......noun Spanish........adjective. Links of Iraq with terrorist groups, like the mass destruction weapons, still looking for them. Interest of the U.S in Iraq, petrol and the superhabit in the budget left by Clinton. Results, thousands of inocent people dead. This is the war against terrorism. Not only the basque escaped fromo muslim invasion, all the north spain from Galicia to Catalunya were never occupied by muslims. For the people who could worried about a change in the religion in Spain, should know that the only religious beliving that is increasing in Spain, fortunately, is atheism. The only surrender of Spain was when conservatives broke its alliance with France and Germany and started to pray looking to Whasington.

Posted by: lorddelsith at March 12, 2005 06:30 AM (uVl88)

20 lorddelsith, you are not looking for the links, you are hiding from them. Here is an old post of Dan Darling's discussing a USA Today story that outlined the links between Iraq and the first WTC bombing. We know what you are.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 12, 2005 07:27 PM (xauGB)

21 You have said it, Robin, a link discussing what "USA today" says. Do you think that I loose my time in reading this things?. Please, post the link with a UNO resolution acusing Irak of any involvement with terrorism. Or at least, a court in the U.S vinculating the sovereing state of Irak with the WTC bombings. For listening opinions I prefer to listen G.W Bush and the weapons of mass destruction, it is very ilustrative to realise which is the creditibility of american politicians all around the world.

Posted by: lorddelsith at March 13, 2005 05:17 AM (uVl88)

22 lorddelsith: Just because you lack the ability to see the big picture doesn't mean others don't. When you grow up, perhaps to will have the depth of thought to understand. My experience has shown me that only a fool waits for someone to hit him first. Of course that would make him in the right to fight back. Myself, I would rather hit first and win. If I foresee a fight that I cannot avoid, better for the other quy to bleed. Iraqi people where responsibile for Saddam. Not the USA. They did not take care of him, so we did. Anyone who believes a mad man like Saddam should stay in power is a fool.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 08:15 AM (JDP+5)

23 The Spanish. Adjective or noun?

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 12:40 PM (CBNGy)

24 lordelsith, no I knew that you didn't spend any time reading anything at all that might have a chance of informing you about reality.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 13, 2005 08:05 PM (xauGB)

25 Example: Spanish coward. Spanish used as adjective. The Spanish are cowards. Spanish used as an noun. Get the point? Ha, Ha. I love rainy days. I can stay in the house, have a few drinks, prepare a speech for Tuesday nights meeting, watch TV and play on the computer. Now if I lived in a muslim country. I couldn't do that. so, screw them all. Oh ya! 1" thick pork chops for dinner. Only in America. I love it. Even rainy day are great.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 09:00 PM (CBNGy)

26 Pork chops--that's why Jack Daniels Grilling Sauce was created. Like you say, only in America.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 14, 2005 07:47 AM (x+5JB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 10, 2005

Why We Shot at Sgrena and Killed Nicola Calipari

Major K. reports an incident in Iraq, where he is stationed:

A short distance from our FOB, A US convoy was driving down the road. As they headed to their destination a civilian vehicle pulled on from a side alley and attempted to get into the convoy....Unable to deter the vehicle from approaching the US convoy or make it pull over, the IPÂ’s [Iraqi Police] fired at the engine of the encroaching vehicle. At this point, the driver detonated the IED inside his vehicle. Yes, this was a classic VBIED.
This suicide bomber killed himself and the four IPÂ’s in the vehicle holding him at bay. The device was so powerful that the bomberÂ’s vehicle was literally obliterated. The engine block was thrown over 25 meters. The IPÂ’s vehicle was nothing but a burned out shell. All four IPÂ’s inside perished in the blast, but not a scratch was inflicted on the vehicles or personnel of the US convoy.

Hat tip to John Donovan who reminds us that it's not just Americans who are dying for Iraqis, but Iraqis dying for Americans.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:29 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

1 it's not just Americans who are dying for Iraqis, but Iraqis dying for Americans. Poor bastards. Poor, poor bastards.

Posted by: Dr. Dr. at March 10, 2005 03:30 PM (9+bUG)

2 Sgrena can consider herself extremely lucky to be alive. If someone had to die in that car, too bad it was Calipari.

Posted by: Van Helsing at March 10, 2005 04:11 PM (vC1jc)

3 Gee, didn'tke I say that somewhere here in these postings? Any car that is not going to stop and is going the speed it is, is going to be taken as a suicide bomber. Man, I know that comment is somewhere on these pages. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 10, 2005 04:38 PM (PEKrh)

4 Any car that is travelling near an US convoy is going to be taken as a suicide bomber and shot at? Men, you have to be proud to have freed Iraq like this! Keep freeing it, and there won't be any Iraqis left to be freed. Who's to be freed next? Iran, Syria? Russia? Or China maybe? Why not Canada and France?

Posted by: paul at March 10, 2005 05:06 PM (53m2/)

5 Good job Paul of making the violence in Iraq the fault of the victims. Zarqawi would be proud of your efforts.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 10, 2005 05:38 PM (xauGB)

6 I think we need to annex Canada. They have plenty of fresh water. As for France...well, I like beaujolais, ok, lets annex France too but pass a law that requires women to shave their armpits.

Posted by: Mr. K at March 10, 2005 08:06 PM (yfis9)

7 Don't let the cat out of the bag, Mr.K, but I think the Albertans will support an invasion to free them from Ottawa's domination.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 10, 2005 10:53 PM (xauGB)

8 Jawa You people are some scary motherlovers. Blood lust describes this site.

Posted by: Patsy at March 10, 2005 11:58 PM (6MOxp)

9 Don't let the cat out of the bag, Mr.K, but I think the Albertans will support an invasion to free them from Ottawa's domination. You are kidding, arent'you? Because, if you are not, Canadians really should begin to worry.

Posted by: paul at March 11, 2005 02:42 AM (S5JC5)

10 PAUL: How many years did it take you to learn to turn a computer on? It was humor. Leave this blog now. We have enough moonbats.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 03:01 AM (CBNGy)

11 Well, I was stupid not to understand it was a joke, I can't deny that. But think about it... Think how the US image has changed if not-US people (like me) find it conceivable that they could invade Canada! The problem is that I used to love America, and now America scares me to my bones.

Posted by: paul at March 11, 2005 04:41 AM (8U5to)

12 We should annex America Lite (Canada) but I think we should ethically cleanse the French out of Canada and Europe

The bunch of cheese eatin' surrender monkeys! I am sooo glad that everyone is afraid of the US and what we might do....that's the way it ought to be

(tongue slightly in cheek)

Posted by: Moriarti at March 11, 2005 06:50 AM (dLFsa)

13 Yea, Yea. Most moonbats are always afraid of something.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 08:37 AM (CBNGy)

14 Don't worry we won't invade Canada. If we did, we would have to take in the ragsheads on every street corner in Toronto. Maybe there are more in Montreal. Don't know as I don't travel to French territory.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 08:42 AM (CBNGy)

15 I guess I shouldn't tell Paul about the tv show Southpark, should I? Back to topic, Sgrena has started telling yet another version of her story that shows her lack of credibility link here to Captain Ed's discussion.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 11, 2005 09:07 AM (xauGB)

16 During an argument between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Peres said that Israelis' policies of continued violence might "turn the US against us". Ã‚Â To this Sharon retorted: Ã‚Â "EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL; Ã‚Â WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT." Ã‚Â -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 (IAP News)

Posted by: greg at March 11, 2005 04:52 PM (/+dAV)

17 Greyrooster welcome back your wit and charm have been sorely missed

Posted by: sparky at March 11, 2005 06:15 PM (F1nba)

18 Paul, For your positive opinon about America to change so easily means either it was never earnest, or, that you have no clue what this country has historically done when attacked - do not let eight years of Clinton's passive foreign policy and weakness convince you we are something we are not.

Posted by: jcrue at March 11, 2005 06:47 PM (Qs+xB)

19 "greg", You don't mention that "IAP News" is an islamic terrorist organization. The bottom line? You are an anti-semite liar found on the sole of my shoes. And a terrorist symp. CAMERA debunks the lie by "greg".

Posted by: SPQR at March 11, 2005 08:51 PM (xauGB)

20 greg: either share your drugs or quit posting the same thing over and over. Sparky: Back, but a little lighter in the pockets. All in family either sore or sick. The crap tables are better than ski slopes even if you pay a little. Local brothel now run by the Federal Government. No shit! They took it over for back taxes. Figured if the feds were there I wouldn't be. Rather buck the dice than the feds. Never heard of taxing P___y before. Only in America. God, I love it.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 11, 2005 11:26 PM (CBNGy)

21 A well sick and sore means you had a great time I hope you and your family are visiting my Beautiful Country when you come to the UK Bonnie Scotland has no P---- Tax you should love it

Posted by: sparky at March 12, 2005 08:33 AM (F1nba)

22 And some bonnie redheads.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 12:44 PM (CBNGy)

23 I must be slipping. Cindy hasn't corrected me yet. She's my politically correct conscience. Now, now greyrooster, you must be more sensitive of the feelings of others. After 4 shots of Johnny Walker she's probably correct. Sparkys fault. Got me thinking about Scotland. Just heard 6 people were killed in a church this morning. I kill you in the name of God who is all merciful. Bullshit. If I were Emperor of the United Nations I would outlaw religion. Ah. United Nations. Now thats a bunch of bullshit. No such animal. United, yea sure! United to protect their jobs and stupid diplomatic immunity.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 09:17 PM (CBNGy)

24 Think me'll hav nothr ohnny Walkie

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2005 09:24 PM (CBNGy)

25 US Report of Caliapri's death http://www.marcoworld.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=47

Posted by: Marco at May 02, 2005 02:21 PM (ck64Q)

26 You can't be 24238 serious?!?

Posted by: Mary Box at August 02, 2006 04:58 PM (rVMOQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

195kb generated in CPU 0.0449, elapsed 0.0601 seconds.
38 queries taking 0.0303 seconds, 349 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 24186
Files: 11
Bytes: 143.2M
CPU Time: 15:44
Queries: 2144521

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

March 14, 2005

March 12, 2005

March 11, 2005

March 10, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds