June 16, 2006
So Much for 'Elevating the Level of Discourse'
We often hear Bush-haters denounce the right for "hate speech" and preaching that we should raise the level of political discourse. Their comments would carry a lot more weight if they would lead by example. You'd have thought they would've learned their lesson after the negative reaction to Kerry-Edwards' attempt to use Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter as a wedge issue. Apparently, using personal issues and family tragedies is still considered clever by some. Former CIA officer and New York Times columnist
Larry C. Johnson, who blogs at
No Quarter has been a real sweetheart lately:
Karl [Rove] is a shameless bastard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out. It would be one thing if his vile tactics were simply mere smears of politicians like Kerry and Murtha. They are big boys and should be able to defend themselves quite ably against this turd. But Rove, like Josef Goebbels, has used fear and smear as his primary tools to keep George Bush in power. And to what end?
Nice. One could perhaps mark this nastiness up as the hateful ranting of a single individual and not reflective of lefty sentiment in general. Surely Larry's fellow Rove haters will take him to task for stepping over the line? Surely this is going too far, even for the lefty bloggers. Guess not. Check out these "enlightened" comments to his post:
more...
Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at
10:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.
June 09, 2006
Pete Stark's Conspiracy Theory
From the
Washington Times (emphasis added):
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."
It's depressing to think that a sitting member of Congress could make such an imbecilic statement. Stark has managed to slander both the President and the military in one breath. Previously, Stark likened the use of smart bombs in Baghdad at the beginning of the war to "...an act of extreme terrorism."
Stark implies a breathtaking conspiracy that would necessarily involve hundreds of public servants and thousands of military personnel. How else would the President be able to control the the timing of Zarqawi's death? And, like Jack Murtha, Stark has chosen to ignore the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" regarding allegations of Marines killing Iraqi civilians. Yes, Congressman Stark, that principle applies even to the men and women serving in our country's armed forces.
These chicken-with-its-head-cut-off reactions by Stark and other politicians from the Left indicate that, despite attempts to minimize the news, they realize that the killing of Zarqawi is an extremely significant event.
Stark's behavior cries out for official censure, at a minimum. Certainly the mainstream media would agree, if Stark were a Republican.
Via Stop the ACLU.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
04:15 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
1
And there, ladies and gents, is the spin from the left about how to make Zarqawi's death a bad thing. I can't wait to hear what Mouth Murtha has to say about this...
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 09, 2006 04:34 PM (CtVG6)
2
Murtha could swaller a lightweight like yerself whole, even with a reg'lar mouth
Posted by: Party Pooper at June 09, 2006 05:06 PM (oxMjD)
3
Rep. (or should it be traitor) Stark and company wonder why they are no longer the party of the people. God help this nation should they regain power.
"Islam must be destroyed."
RayRio
Posted by: RayRio at June 09, 2006 05:15 PM (1CTkD)
4
PETE STARK is a pariniod he is competly out of his mind just like AL GORE is
Posted by: sandpiper at June 09, 2006 07:38 PM (XnXsx)
5
Dumbass comment, that's for sure. Altho he doesn't say there was a conspiracy theory. He seems to be referring to the Bush administration's publicizing of this event. I still think it was a dumb comment, but it's really not a conspiracy claim.
Able Danger, now that's a conspiracy charge.
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (DQYHA)
6
Not Liking Bush= Anti American
Not Suporting the war= Anti American
Being open minded= Anti American
Die anyone with a rational thought. We should trounce this fuckin world and anyone with a turbine
Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:21 PM (Tf4se)
7
You know Bluto when I read that article I never did see the word "stunt" in quotes anywhere. Are you sure that he said that it was a stunt ?
Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:52 PM (TcoRJ)
8
Nothing is sweeter than the bleeting moonbats posting here. Poor babies. Schandenfreude is such a rush!!
As for Stark, can we start questioning his patriotism yet??
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at June 10, 2006 02:21 AM (blNMI)
9
Embers from a burn barrel ignited a fire that spread to 15,000 acres Friday, burning at least one home and forcing people to evacuate residences along a 13-mile stretch of highway near the city of Nenana, Alaska, officials said............Halliburton? Evil little spandex garbed, right-winged, conspirators?????GLOBAL WARMING????????sarc off
Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 04:57 AM (7RMSi)
10
What is depressing isn't so much that there are idiots like Pete Stark, but that there is a constituency out there that sent him to Washington. Universal suffrage is a bad idea.
Posted by: ptg at June 10, 2006 06:45 AM (rVWj9)
11
During the Solomon Islands campaign in 1943, Admiral Isoroku YamamotoÂ’s Betty bomber was ambushed by a squadron of P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft over Bougainville. These aircraft were sent after intercepting a Japanese coded transmission, which revealed that Yamamoto would be on an inspection tour of forward air bases. All aboard the two Betty bombers were killed.
Admiral YamamotoÂ’s death was a tragic blow to Japanese morale.
A congressman from California spoke on the floor of the house the following day. McDermott Stark (D) CA said, “This was a well timed publicity stunt to raise the sagging poll numbers of the President.” Stark who plans to challenge the President in the 1944 New Hampshire primary said, “I’m not going to have my patriotism questioned by anyone”. “Pearl Harbor was a staged event. The Explosions on the Arizona can be seen before any Japanese planes arrived. Stark also shouted “ Wingnut, Halaburton and Monkey Boy” for reasons only he knows.
Posted by: B rad at June 10, 2006 07:11 AM (BJYNn)
12
"Universal suffrage is a bad idea"
What? You mean you don't like how in America the candidate with better hair and other telegenic qualities usually wins?
Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:37 AM (DYb4r)
13
Pete Stark is stark raving mad.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:12 PM (8e/V4)
14
Notice how now that Zarqawi is dead all the news agencies are calling him a "terrorist"?
Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 06:11 PM (YudAC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 24, 2006
ACLU May Gag Its Own Members
From the
New York Times:
The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.
Former board members are said to be shocked by the proposals, which may be why they're
former board members.
Why would an organization purportedly dedicated to protecting civil liberties seek to deny freedom of speech and expression to its own members? The money:
"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.
So the ACLU recognizes the need to present a unified face to the public in order to maintain their cash flow, and acknowledges that the restriction of some individual liberty is necessary to achieve that goal.
Why then does the ACLU not recognize the need for the US government to do similar things in order to preserve the lives of American citizens? Is it because the ACLU is more about maintaining the flow of dollars into its members' pockets than it is about any real concern for individual liberties?
For those who came in late, the US Constitution was doing a magnificent job of protecting individual liberty long before the lawyers of the ACLU came on the scene.
Via Stop the ACLU.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
08:42 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Oh, but the 1st amendment only applies to government! say the Leftards. That's why Leftards have no problems whatsoever acting out their totalitarian impulses privately.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 09:07 AM (8e/V4)
2
Are you six years old? Because that's what six-year-olds do: call people silly names. The stated mission of the ACLU is to protect us, the American people, against government incursion into our private affairs and civil rights. The Constitution is a great document, but it doesn't do anything by itself; the Constitution only accomplishes things through the efforts of those willing to defend it. If we pretend that the Constitution is capable of protecting liberty on its own then we will certainly have our rights stripped from us.
It's worth noting that the Constitution is primarily concerned with limiting the power of the government, which the founders strongly distrusted. To effectively fight government abuses of power, the ACLU needs unity of purpose (sound familiar? The Republican Party believes this too) and effective fund raising. To pretend otherwise is naive. See how I didn't call any names? That's because I actually have a point.
Posted by: Adam at May 24, 2006 12:40 PM (tlKJH)
3
>>>Are you six years old? Because that's what six-year-olds do: call people silly names.
Does Chimpy McBushitler qualify as a silly name? How bout "fascist" and "nazi".
I couldn't give two rat turds about the ACLU's "stated mission" and your Leftard talking points. I knew those talking points by heart since before you were pooping your diapers.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:07 PM (8e/V4)
4
You know, that sounded so grand and righteous, but it's a shame the ACLU sees a cross in a military cemetary as an infringement on our rights and civil liberties.
It's a shame that because the Boy Scouts will not remove God from their oath the ACLU finds it necessary to ensure that institutions like parks and schools do not allow them to camp free of charge or hold meetings - even though they consistently leave the place better than it was before they arrived.
It's a shame they could not take a case for a man who had a very strong case of discrimination against a Southern California School district by citing a "lack of funds". Unfortunately, during that time all their funds were directed toward protecting the rights of those who wanted to view pornography on public library computers in full view of families and children.
It's a shame the ACLU fights Meagan's laws designed to protect innocent people in every state in order to elevate the protection of convicted sex felons.
The ACLU has not waivered from the principles of its founder, Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist: "When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever."
The ACLU has lost its way.
Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 02:08 PM (nBOAO)
5
Oyster,
word. There's a huge difference between what the Left CLAIMS the ACLU does vs what it ACTUALLY does. Leftard talking points be damned.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:11 PM (8e/V4)
6
ACLU supported NAMBLA also. It appears to me the ACLU is part of a wide front attacking this country. Perhaps, the ACLU should be labeled a terror group. That would open the door to closing their doors for good.
Does lefturds not like my freedom of speech?
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 24, 2006 03:15 PM (D2g/j)
7
I look forward to some lefturd telling me what my
real Constitutional rights are just as I kick the props out from under them and watch them dance.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:06 PM (0yYS2)
8
"Oh, but the 1st amendment only applies to government! say the Leftards"
I think more people than 'leftards' say this. Like, the courts, and the constitution say this too.
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 04:50 PM (nnhSu)
9
Thanks, actus! Right on cue!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 05:14 PM (8e/V4)
10
"Thanks, actus! Right on cue!"
I missed this sort of common sense.
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 05:28 PM (nnhSu)
11
>>>I missed this sort of common sense.
Not to mention you lack any common sense. Don't feel bad. It goes with the territory on the Left. You're too busy using the courts to suppress other people's freedom of speech to worry about common sense.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 06:50 PM (8e/V4)
12
"Not to mention you lack any common sense."
A surprising and completely unexpected retort. Like I said. Things are quite common around here.
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 06:56 PM (nnhSu)
13
Gag the ACLU. Do they need any help?
Rectus, ACLU, Nambla wonder why they are mentioned in the same pargraph?
Adam, look up quick. There's a pie in the sky.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:22 PM (8MCDk)
14
Actus is busy tonight, kissing ass for the ACLU.
Is it fair to say that dissent is NOT the highest form of patriotism inside the ACLU?
Posted by: Robert Crawford at May 24, 2006 08:49 PM (Gn9tM)
15
The ACLU, through litigation, forces government institutions and those institutions that accept government funding to recognize the rights (contrived or otherwise) of its employees. You know, protecting the speech and actions of the employees of said institutions. The ACLU should hold itself to the same standards and if it wants to gag its members and curtail their rights, I demand that they stop accepting government funding and become a private entity funded soley through voluntary donations or start charging fees from their plaintiffs.
Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2006 06:15 AM (YudAC)
16
Legion fights back against ACLU's 'secular cleansing'
"America's veterans memorials have become a casualty of litigation wars as atheists and special interest organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union pursue their fanatical secular cleansing agendas," said American Legion California Department Commander Wayne Parrish."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50366
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 25, 2006 07:46 AM (8e/V4)
17
Look at whats happening to the notorios ACLU they are as bad as any red suversives
Posted by: sandpiper at May 25, 2006 02:42 PM (760E/)
18
So, Rectus, you're saying the Bill of Rights only applies to the government? How very unexpected!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2006 08:20 AM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 18, 2006
American Suspects Arrested - Won't Do Jobs Mexicans Will
(Duncan, Oklahoma) Halliburton executives have been accused of trying to avoid controversy by holding their shareholders' meeting in the city of Duncan. Not so, responded the Houston-based company. Rather, Duncan was chosen since the company was founded there and management wanted to highlight operations that continue there.
I confess to not caring one whit.
From KansasCity.com:
Sixteen people protesting Halliburton Co.'s environmental record and its role as a military contractor were arrested on trespassing charges today when they surged toward a building where company shareholders were meeting.
Another man was arrested on a charge of destroying public property for tearing up a plastic fence holding back protesters.
A masked man beat on a large empty jug and protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching," and "Shame on you," while police made the arrests. A designated area had been set up for the protest, and police had told protesters not to leave that area.
Those arrested were frisked, handcuffed and taken to the Stephens County Jail.
As a result, we can now identify at least 16 people who are responsible for Mexicans sneaking across the border. These 16 protesters are likely Americans who won't do jobs that Mexicans will. How else could you explain them being available in the middle of the week and able to travel to Oklahoma, all for the sake of being a pain in the ass?
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
05:57 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Got to admit, thats a solid argument.
Posted by: MiB at May 18, 2006 06:10 AM (B9sDR)
2
The dude's empty jug may explain his getting arrested.
Then again, this bunch of pansies sounds like the Duncan High School football team in off season training. We used to kick their hineys all the time. Probably ruined their self-esteem and pushed them over the edge into moonbattery.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 18, 2006 10:53 AM (GSGaQ)
3
I'll trade one hundred liberals for one Mexican any day. Ah hell, I'll make it a thousand.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 18, 2006 04:41 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2006
The Kennedy Crash and the McKinney Punch
In his second official statement, Representative Patrick Kennedy says that he smashed his car into a security barrier in the wee hours yesterday morning because of prescription drugs.
From the Washington Post:
Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy crashed his car into a security barrier near the Capitol early yesterday, and officers at the scene suspected that he might have been intoxicated, a police union official said.
Kennedy (D-R.I.) issued a statement late last night -- his second in several hours -- saying he had been disoriented after taking prescription drugs: Phenergan for gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines, and Ambien, a sleeping medication.
Kennedy now claims that the combination of medications disoriented him and apparently made him sort of sleepwalk out to the car, thinking that he had to get to a vote.
Embarrassing as this floundering may be, it raises a more serious question. Capital Police officers have said that they were prevented by their superiors from conducting field sobriety tests on Kennedy, who was reportedly driven home by a Capital Police sergeant.
Was Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney onto something when she said that the incident that culminated in her punching a Capital Police officer was precipitated because she is black?
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
06:36 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
1
A Kennedy? Driving drunk? The hell you say! It's just a good thing the slimy piece of shit wasn't coming from happy hour when the streets were full of people. What this country needs are a few more men like Oswald and Sirhan.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2006 07:23 AM (0yYS2)
2
We tell this joke at Black Caucus meetings all the time:
Patrick Kennedy walks out of a bar with a key in his hand and he is stumbling back and forth. A cop on the beat sees him and approaches "Can I help you sir?"
"Yessh! Ssssomebody ssstole my carrr" the Congressman replies.
The cop asks "Where was your car the last time you saw it?"
"It wasss on the end of thisshh key" Kennedy replies.
About that time the cop looks down and sees PatrickÂ’s weiner hanging out of his fly for all the world to see.
He asks the Drunken Rep "Sir are you aware that you are exposing yourself?"
Momentarily confused, Patrick looks down at his crotch and without missing a beat, blurts out..........
"Holy shit ----- My girlfriend's gone, too!!!!!"
Posted by: Cythia Mckinney at May 05, 2006 07:29 AM (Ffvoi)
3
I wonder if Cynthia McKinney has a real complaint here?
She merely pushes past the guard and is seriously hassled.
Patrick Kennedy takes drugs, probably drinks and drives, crashes, and he is given a ride back home to work on his alibi and contact his lawyers.
Remember: Liberalism IS Racism!
Posted by: Izzy at May 05, 2006 09:11 AM (AkKlL)
4
IZZY,
You know if the Capitol Police stop a Sister for driving like a Kennedy after the bars close, she ain’t getting away with that “late for a vote shit”. Cops start asking the gal for her lapel pin and talkin that kind of slave ship stuff we been hearing for 400 years.
There are democrats and there are demo-crats. ThatÂ’s all IÂ’m sayin.
Posted by: Cynthia Mckinney at May 05, 2006 09:42 AM (Ffvoi)
5
I can't seem to understand where the lines blur. The issue is really black and white. (No pun intended) Assault and battery for the sister and DUI for the idiot. I know I live in a fantasy world but why can't we just get over this hump in America. Breaking the law is..well...breaking the law! Illegal is Illegal, whether it is immigration, driving under the influence or assaulting a police officer.
Posted by: Beast the Terrible at May 05, 2006 10:28 AM (G691r)
6
Until all people of color can walk into secure areas of the Capitol without identification, America will continue to be a Plantation run by WHITY.
I try to get into the Gubberment building and get felt up like a Bada Bing girl by the Capitol Poooolice!! Some rich peckerwood drives all over the sidewalk twice fortnightly full of scotch and fried clams and the little bitch walks. We both Congressmen ainÂ’t no difference other than he got the right paint job.
AMERICA HAS GOT TO CHANGE! IF THINGS DONÂ’T CHANGE, WE WILL REARRANGE!!!!
Eww, that rhymes bitch, I like that.
Posted by: Cynthia Mckinney at May 05, 2006 10:48 AM (Ffvoi)
7
Patrick should have been breathalyzed like any other human being. Just like cops should have breathalyzed Cheney after he shot a guy in the face, but the shooting went unreported for hours, until a breathalyzer was useless. Funny how the rich and powerful of both parties get special treatment. It's wrong both times. You and I shoot somebody while hunting, after drinking, when we don't have a license...and see what happens to us. You and I hit a security barrier, stagger around talking crap, and see what happens.
Posted by: jd at May 05, 2006 11:25 AM (Ff/ID)
8
Everyone knows that the Kennedys, with one lone exception, can get away with murder, as they've done it a few times, so what's a little DUI?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2006 06:34 PM (0yYS2)
9
"...Cheney after he shot a guy in the face,..."
Way to go making it sound like something it wasn't. I know a few hunters that say Cheney was more wrong than his pal, but let's use a little more intellectual honesty here, jd. The incident was reported immediately. It just didn't hit the papers right away. And everyone admitted he had a beer with lunch hours before. It was an accident. These two situations, the Kennedy one and the Cheney one, were worlds apart.
Posted by: Oyster at May 06, 2006 06:04 AM (YudAC)
10
Actually, Oyster, I think you'll find that local police were not notified immediately. Cheney was not interviewed until many hours afterwards. I don't think they are worlds apart, although they certainly are not the same. For one thing, the special treatment that Patrick received is more obvious, because there are a lot more DUI's than there are shooting accidents. Also, it was a large police force, whereas we are talking small town local in the case of Cheney, and small town cops tend to make a lot of exceptions, for people they know and for the wealthy/connected, because there simply is less bureaucracy (of course, there are big city corrupt police departments, like Chicago under the elder Daley, where special treatment was just the norm).
but as far as we know, Cheney had plenty of time to get the alcohol out of his system before the cops were called in TX. Was he drunk? Dunno. He had a beer at lunch. He made a really boneheaded move. Guess we'll never know.
My main point is--in America (and around the world), rich and politically powerful people get special treatment from cops. It isn't about liberals and conservatives. It's about them and us. And us get screwed, comparatively.
Posted by: jd at May 06, 2006 01:34 PM (Ff/ID)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 28, 2006
Air America Losing New York
According to
MediaWeek, Air America will
lose its flagship station in New York City. The lease with WLIB-AM runs out as of August 31. As a network, Air America will no longer determine programming for the station. Instead, station owners are expected to offer liberal local programs.
A spokesperson for Air America, however, promised that the liberal radio network would "not grow silent on the New York City airwaves." It's not clear what that means. Maybe Air America has found another station that has no interest in accumulating an audience. Given enough seed money to prop it up, Air America will surely find a taker. Then, I think it will only be a matter of time before the backers back out.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
07:08 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Somwhere on this website for whomever guesses right there is a free r5d4 and death start droid action figure. Guesses will be accepted for 10 more days. Gee I hope I don't have to actually cough those up.
Posted by: Howie at April 28, 2006 08:10 PM (D3+20)
2
Aahhhh...so
that's why Stuart Smally wants to run for political office.
He sees the last stop on the AirAmerica choo choo getting closer and closer...
Posted by: mrclark at April 28, 2006 10:49 PM (tKHno)
3
Air America isn't a radio network, it's a farse, a Liberal PAC, a paid extension of the Democrat party, propped up by billionaire Leftists. This was predicted from day one. Leftism can't survive in the free market.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 28, 2006 11:13 PM (M3nr/)
4
It's a JOOOOOOish conspiracy.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 29, 2006 06:36 AM (0yYS2)
5
What NYC really needs is a C&W station! And a full time Blues station - WGBO's segments aren't enough!!!!!
HELP ME GOD!
Posted by: hondo at April 29, 2006 09:26 AM (SeBrl)
6
Gee i thought that GEORGE SOROS was suppost to be financing them
Posted by: sandpiper at April 30, 2006 12:53 PM (QtdTZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 18, 2006
McKinney Report: 'Assault on a Police Officer'
A little person would already have their trial date set, but when you're Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), accused of
assaulting a Capitol Police officer, and willing to
shamelessly play the race card, things go a bit slower.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has published details from the official report of the incident:
The DeKalb County congresswoman struck the officer "in his chest with [a] closed fist."
The "event report" — obtained Tuesday by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution — describes the altercation as an assault on a police officer.
There had previously been reports that McKinney "stabbed" the officer with a cellphone or that she slapped McKenna with an open hand.
McKinney said she was the victim of racial profiling and that the officer had touched her inappropriately when he tried to stop her.
The Fraternal Order of Police wants the officer, identified in the report as Paul McKenna, to sue McKinney. It may be the only way for justice to be served in this case.
Via the Drudge Report.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Vince Aut Morire and Stop the ACLU.
Posted by: Bluto at
11:12 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.
1
She needs bitch-slapped
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 18, 2006 11:27 PM (FCC6c)
2
Don't mess with Sista Souljah.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 18, 2006 11:34 PM (8e/V4)
3
It takes me soooooooo long to read through all that skullduggery!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 12:33 AM (FCC6c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 17, 2006
Hanoi Jane Passes the Torch
Update your programs. There's an official change in the leadership of the anti-war movement.
From ContraCostaTimes.com:
Jane Fonda says she would like to tour the country and speak out against U.S. involvement in Iraq, but her controversial history of Vietnam War protests leaves her with "too much baggage."
"I wanted to do a tour like I did during the Vietnam War, a tour of the country," the Oscar-winning actress said Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "But then Cindy Sheehan filled in the gap, and she is better at this than I am. I carry too much baggage."
Maybe it's
just me, but I can't think of a more damning indictment than to be happy about having Cindy Sheehan as your replacement.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
04:37 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Don't suppor the war?
Please contact the following anti-warmongers
at UC Santa Cruz:
CONTACT: Students Against WarÂ’s ad-hoc press team:
Sam Aranke - /ph #s removed/ - saranke@ucsc.edu
David Zlutnick – - dzlutnic@ucsc.edu
Janine Carmona - - jgcarmon@ucsc.edu
Posted by: Smoke weed, stop the war! at April 17, 2006 08:45 PM (hMLSq)
2
And no, the email attached to my name isn't the real one. So don't bother!
These are the clowns that drove the military recruiters off campus at Santa Cruz. Call em up and let them know what you think of these moonbats.
Posted by: Smoke weed, stop the war! at April 17, 2006 09:22 PM (hMLSq)
3
Now I do wonder. I would move these up but no way man. Please no phone #s
Posted by: Howie at April 17, 2006 09:44 PM (D3+20)
4
OK - back on topic - is Cindy gonna do an exercise video now or what? I'm trying to not imagine her in tights bouncing up and down.
Posted by: hondo at April 17, 2006 10:17 PM (4mgfY)
5
Thanks, Hondo. Now I'm going to have the image of that psychotic leftist tool in my head.
Posted by: Mike at April 18, 2006 12:05 AM (ZdKfx)
6
Will Cindy Sheehan star in "Barbarella II"??
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 18, 2006 02:38 AM (blNMI)
7
Well, she's certainly following in Jane's footsteps. Jane has her picture with the enemy and Sheehan has her picture with Chavez.
Posted by: Oyster at April 18, 2006 05:57 AM (YudAC)
8
Someone must have stole the wheels off her peace bus and now it sit in her backyard on blocks and maybe she is making another crappy movie as bad as MONSTER IN LAW
Posted by: sandpiper at April 18, 2006 08:43 AM (2cLBb)
9
Cindy is drawing smaller and smaller crowds these days, from 50 squealing something boring about war, to noone to buy her file of expensive toilet paper, sorry book.
Will anyone remember this fool in years to come..
Posted by: MathewK at April 18, 2006 05:08 PM (pVHqF)
10
How about an "I would rather have an 'X' replace me than Cindy Sheehan" contest, kind of like with the "I would rather go hunting with Dick Cheney then 'X'" contest.
Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at April 18, 2006 08:07 PM (3smJS)
11
Lawyers and Vice-presidents. In good company. Birds of a feather flock together ... hmm ..
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 10:55 AM (FCC6c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 23, 2006
Reid Threatens Filibuster to Get Amnesty For Illegals
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-MX) wants his party's 11 million votes. That's the number of illegal immigrants estimated to be in the US. Reid has threatened to filibuster a Senate bill to overhaul immigration if Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist goes ahead with a version that doesn't guarantee a "path to citizenship" for the aliens currently evading the INS.
From the Associated Press:
"If Leader Frist brings a bill to the floor that does not have the approval of the Judiciary Committee, it will not get out of the Senate," Reid told reporters at the San Ysidro border crossing, a few steps from Tijuana, Mexico.
I'm not sure why Harry has flown into such a snit. If the Dems can't legalize the illegals to use for voting purposes they could always come up with the votes the old school Donkey way; raiding graveyards.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:08 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
1
OH NO! A libtard has foiled us with his clever attack! Whatever shall we do?!?!?!
Idiot.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 23, 2006 05:45 AM (0yYS2)
2
Another losing debate for the rats to take on.
Posted by: 10ksnooker at March 23, 2006 07:15 AM (7evkT)
3
lets see, ted kennedy is the senator representing saddem's personally, and harry reid is the senator representing mexico, and john kerry is the senator representing france. when kerry was running for prez in 2004, he was hinting at a claim that one of his grandparents was jewish, however he wasn't very concerned for israel with j kerry's comments about how the israeli security to prevent the entry of suicide bombers into israel was a threat to world peace. in a sense j kerry was representing 2 countrys instead of 1.
then hillary has bibical enthusiasm over immigration, to bad she hasn't bibical enthusiasm to overthrow roe v wade because of what Psalm 139 says. how did hillary vote over the Terri Schiavo matter last year?
Posted by: i get drunk with ted kennedy at March 23, 2006 07:38 AM (+lqXB)
4
Hillary's jumped on the bandwagon too (big surprise). She's actually invoking scripture in her defense of illegals overrunning the US. I guess she figures the 11 million illegals will put her over the top. Now if she can just get the felons....
Posted by: Richard at March 23, 2006 08:45 AM (7KF8r)
5
Time to filibuster HARRY REID time to take a whip to that brainless jackass
Posted by: sandpiper at March 23, 2006 09:26 AM (1LUQw)
6
This is a good thing. Most people are already ticked off that we haven't closed down our borders. These leftards could have used this as a major issue in the midterm elections but, once again, they've staked out a position against mainstream America. Just shows how out of touch they really are.
Posted by: slug at March 23, 2006 10:02 AM (wcNc2)
7
Good point, slug, the Dems showed their hand just a little bit too soon. Thank God! Now, if only the Republicans will regain their senses and make this an issue. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, though.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 10:24 AM (rUyw4)
8
Does Reid think he has the votes? Will the gelding Frist take him up on his offer? How about a real filibuster? Will the Dems stand and talk around the clock?
P-L-E-A-S-E!
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at March 23, 2006 10:27 AM (WOQ34)
9
i wonder what the scripture fat socialist cow hillary c is using to justify immigration? may be howard dean since he thinks the book of Job is found in the New Testament, is fat socialist hillary's advisor on what is said in the Bible. i read lakeoff's book don't think of an elephant, where he essentially gives advice to the dems how to use english phrases as a means of attracting voters. seems the dem's are retarted to think that it could be voters want substance not english style.
like jay severin right now on the radio is talking about how illegals can dictate to us americans what laws we as americans can make for america.
Posted by: i get drunk with ted kennedy at March 23, 2006 06:31 PM (TBzs3)
10
Apparently they can't even get enough dead felons to vote for them now.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 24, 2006 06:13 AM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 16, 2006
Doctors and the Cult of Moloch
Of all the gods of the ancient world,
Moloch stands out as the worst. Moloch was also known as Baal, and was one of the Punic gods--a god worhsipped by the Phoenicians (Philistines) who later settled Carthage. In the Old Testament, a great deal of ink is devoted to denouncing Moloch-Baal worship. Why? Because the central ritual of Moloch worship was sacrificing children. Legend, you might claim, no one would kill their own children! Greek and Roman texts also record how the Carthiginians sacrificed children by burning them to death.
As digsusting as all that is, at least it is history, right? Wrong. Today Moloch worship is alive and well. Its high-priests are doctors, its religion science, and its mantra quality of life.
Doctors in England have been trying to murder an 18 month old child for some time now. Luckily, a court has stopped these modern day Moloch worshippers who advocated killing the child because they deemed his life not worth living.
Unfortunately, this is but the first round of what I foresee as a long battle.
Danny Carleton has some very personal details on this and why it matters.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:49 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.
1
wow, Rusty. And you say you're not a conservative.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 16, 2006 08:56 AM (8e/V4)
2
Yeesh, that's a terrible story. . .
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at March 16, 2006 09:00 AM (y1hCN)
3
I think the motivation is different from the Molochs. Molochs were driven out of fear or sadism or craziness. The doctor's motivation is mercy and compassion. I don't think it is a fair comparison and I hope if I were in the situation as the boy or Mario Shiavo that someone would have the compassion to put me out of my misery.
Posted by: Mercy Killing at March 16, 2006 09:16 AM (Y2ILH)
4
Hey 'mercy killing', I'll volunteer to pull the trigger.
The motivation of the priests of Moloch were also good--saving the people from the wrath of god. Since when has motivation ever mattered when judging the morality of an act.
Carlos,
The first right is the right to life. Liberty is only instrumental to that right.
Posted by: Rusty at March 16, 2006 09:25 AM (JQjhA)
5
This isn't compassion. It's more of the usual liberal-minded arrogance, where the average person, regardless of who they are or their capabilities, isn't considered to be smart enough to know what's best for them. If it's all about compassion, how come now one's bumped Stephen Hawking to the front of the line?
Posted by: Graeme at March 16, 2006 09:31 AM (ZPph3)
6
According to wikipedia infanticide was common in all well studied ancient cultures, including those of ancient Greece Rome India China, and Japan. It was outlawed in Rome in 374 AD but rarely prosecuted. ALL adults should have a health proxy to make decisions for them, otherwise it will be left to the state.
Posted by: john ryan at March 16, 2006 09:57 AM (TcoRJ)
7
So what John? So that makes it okay, since, you know, other cultures did it?????
The parents of this child have been fighting to keep him alive. It is the doctors who sued to kill him!!!!
Posted by: Rusty at March 16, 2006 10:35 AM (JQjhA)
8
I think what Rusty is trying to say is that it's a family decision. Not the court's. Government may claim "compassion" as the motive, but a court of strangers should not overide personal decisions. And what is there to stop them from expanding that definition of compassion?
Posted by: Oyster at March 16, 2006 10:55 AM (g9UJq)
9
Not to be a prude for historical accuracy, Dr. Rusty, but my understanding is that the Phoenicans and the Philistines were not one and the same. The Phoenicians predated the Philistines along what is now the Israeli-Lebanese coast. The gods and rituals that you mention -- Baal and Moloch -- were Punic and not Philistine.
The Philistines' origins are identified with a place called "Caphtor," whose exact location is unsettled but which many believe to be Crete or Greece. They were one of a group of "sea peoples" that attacked Egypt under Ramses II in an unsusccessful attempt to settle there before settling on the Israeli coast around Ascalon and Gaza.
Posted by: ProCynic at March 16, 2006 11:22 AM (bfkgE)
10
>>>Since when has motivation ever mattered when judging the morality of an act.
Oh, since Liberalism made emotions the primary driving force behind their ideology.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 16, 2006 11:29 AM (8e/V4)
11
Libs scream about the coming fascist state led by the likes of Roberts and Alito.
All the while millions die silently year after year. There will be nothing as obvious as a concentration camp with barbed wire and crematoria. No, the new Auschwitz will look much like a health clinic or hospital. The new Joseph Mengele will be a Dr. who decides who gets to live or die.
Good God, a Dr. is suing to be allowed to kill a child whose parents want to keep him alive? What piece of shit out there defends this?
IÂ’ve started shopping for a hand gun. I just thought with an American flag in front of the home, some Islamic wacko might feel empowered to try to kill me. I seem to be drawn to the Glock 17 but am still reading up.
This post makes me think it may come in handy in a few years when IÂ’m baby sitting my DownÂ’s syndrome nephew and the state comes for him. Some atheist faggot at the clinic wants the little guy to come for a visit.
Islamic wackos to the right killing by the thousands annually. Lefty is silently killing by the millions each year. Maybe it is time to stop shopping and buy the damn thing.
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2006 12:47 PM (3OPZt)
12
Brad, I much prefer the Colt .45 Auto, but the Glock is fine too, but don't forget to buy at least 1,000 rounds of ammo with it so you will have plenty. I also suggest a good pump shotgun, the Remington 870 is the best, and a semi-automatic rifle, preferably one of the Socoms.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 16, 2006 03:42 PM (rUyw4)
13
Good point J.C., but Brad may not have that kind of money. Might I suggest buying a Mosberg 12 gauge pump shotgun, several boxes of 4 shot, ( Duck ), at least one box of 00-buck shot, a soild pair of jungle boots, ( $100.00 ). Get your home defense weapon first, and learn to use it well.
Later, you can go 007, and pick up a hand gun that MIGHT win your battles. With the money you save, you can pick up some web gear, canteens, knife, flashlight to attach, some cammies, ( black bottoms, shirt marpart pattern, face veil,( recon wrap ), cover, ( hat ), gloves, and boot laces.
The Mosberg will not cost as much to get. This way Brad, you will look good, and but real fear into the enemy.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 16, 2006 04:36 PM (D2g/j)
14
Thanks Joe,
I already have an old Mossberg 12 gauge over in Eastern WA. I only get to hunt chucker once a year around Thanksgiving so I just leave it over there.
Maybe I'll grab it next time I'm over seeing the folks. I just get the feeling things could get ugly in a hurry pretty soon.
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2006 04:39 PM (3OPZt)
15
lets hope they don't get ugly. I don't think anyone really wants that. It's just every day, or so some moon god worshipper does his thing for Allah. It's just so stupid!
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 16, 2006 05:26 PM (D2g/j)
16
Brad,
When things start to go downhill, they will get out of hand a lot faster than you think. Also, there is no substitute for a good, accurate, powerful handgun that is always close and secure when you really need it. I had a situation a few years ago where I was the victim of an attempted armed robbery, and a small Taurus .38 special saved my life.
This was a life-changing experience. I forgot about always having the very best car or truck, or eating out every Friday and Saturday night, or having the latest in style clothes. I went out and bought the best, not neccessarily the most expensive, guns and accessories I have been able to find.
You would be surprised at some of the deals you can get on guns if you are just patient. For instance, I got a Ruger Model 77 30-06 rifle for $200 from an individual who advertised in one of the free weekly newspapers. He needed the money and he took much less than what the rifle was worth. And frankly, Wal-Mart carries the Remington 870 pump at very attractive prices. The Socoms are expensive, I admit, and I had to save 5 years to get mine, but the AK line of rifles are really inexpensive and have a bullet that is adequate.
My point is that your personal safety should be number one on your list. I put it ahead of everything except basic necessities.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 16, 2006 07:35 PM (rUyw4)
17
Now how in the hell did I know that as soon as Brad said he was looking for a gun, you guys would pop in with advice? And sure enough ...
I dunno. Call me psychic!
hehe.
Posted by: Oyster at March 16, 2006 08:52 PM (YudAC)
18
Well, oyster, you gotta be full of something! And I have made this one of the hobbies of my life. Why? I dunno, maybe it is because I have spent year after year hunting. Or perhaps it is because a small .38 special saved my life. Who cares, it's fun.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 16, 2006 09:29 PM (rUyw4)
19
Oyster, this beats talking to gun salesmen any day!
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2006 11:37 PM (BJYNn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 15, 2006
Broadband for Everyone? WOW
How the hell did I get here? I don't see any half nekid Scott Baio pics! RUSTY!! YOU TRICKED ME!
Ahhhhh. While I am here-
Pelosi now hinting at the libs new "unified" agenda.
Apparently, the "I hate Hitler Bush" agenda just is not cutting it these days so the degenerate libs have to come up with something new. Like, minimum wage hikes and access to broadband. WTF?
Just how much does a burger king grill jockey need to make? 10 bucks an hour?
How much are you willing to pay for that Whopper then. 9 bucks?
So the libs will give everyone broadband. At the expense of which company? How will the gov. mandate on this one? And who is going to give all the poor lap tops so that they can use their now accessable broadband to download porn and pirated rap vidis?
According to Pelosi, Democrats are "about the future" and making it "better for the next generation
Filthy thinks libs are all about butt sex and appeasement but, that is just Filthy.
Posted by: Filthy at
07:15 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Back in the old days politicians would pay cold hard cash when they wanted to buy votes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 15, 2006 07:36 PM (8e/V4)
2
Hell! I want two chickens in every pot! N' stuff - you know - stuff everybody else gets!
Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 08:44 PM (9pQ6D)
3
Hi,
I'm Hillary Clinton, and if you vote for me in 2008 I'll give you FREE broadband service so you can download and watch the public beheadings by our new Islamic governing council.
H. Clinton
Posted by: Agent Meatball at March 15, 2006 09:28 PM (30FRH)
4
Kind of off topic, but I need some info. Who knows anything about Al Jazeera International and Bridge Tv coming to American cable? Bridge looks to be American muslim owned, and claim to want to reach out to Americans and show them what islam is really like. Boasting diverse programming on women's issues, and cartoon's etc. An attempt, I'm sure, to indoctrinate, or lead us down the dhimmi road. Now, Al Jiz Int, is still Arab owned. I'm not sure if they plan on changing their format from the regular beheadings and display of American POWs. This is such an insult on the 3000 Americans who dies on 911, and our troops fighting the war on terror. I'm all for freedom of speech, but we are at war. Did we air nazi propaganda during WW2?
Both channels are scheduled to air this year. Are they already on, and in what markets? One blog indicated TN? I read that Comcast has a deal with Bridge TV, and possibly Al Jiz. Will these channels be part of the basic cable package or premium? Either way, I'm against it.
/Sorry to thread jack, but this has me riled.
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at March 15, 2006 10:10 PM (9xjdU)
5
Oh the democrats, playing the age old class politics, the poor check out person working all their life, while the evil brute of a CEO makes that much in 2 weeks, oh the injustice, oh the poor.
We the democrats will put this right, this injustice, we will bring justice to the wretched CEO, how? ah yes give the check out person a few extra dollars, possibly tax the CEO and other evil rich folk so that most people earn about the same, hang on isn't that what communism is about. I'm sure Pelosi won't be cutting her own salary to lead by example.
Broadband for the masses, what the hell for. how about lowering taxes for those willing to work and get ahead, how about giving lazy workers a kick up the bum to work a bit, how about rewarding people who work hard and obey the law.
As for giving troops the equipment they need, i wonder if that is going to be Clinton-style in Somalia, no no can't give you armour, lest the locals think your being aggressive and start crying, i can just see it, some treacherous democrat (safe under their desk) encouraging Soldiers in Iraq to, lay down arms reach out and open dialogue with jihadi child murderers.
Posted by: MathewK at March 15, 2006 10:57 PM (pVHqF)
6
The libtards do love their bread and circuses, although they seem indifferent to the fate of all other nations that have tried that method of keeping the unwashed mob happy.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 16, 2006 05:14 AM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Howie at March 16, 2006 08:47 AM (D3+20)
8
Remember that massive youth vote that never showed up for the Democrats last time? Free broadband will get them out to the polls! Political leadership Libtard style. And just wait until they sweeten the deal with a year's worth of free porno!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 16, 2006 09:25 AM (8e/V4)
9
Broadband? I'm still waiting for my Mule and 40 acres.
Posted by: Howie at March 16, 2006 09:37 AM (D3+20)
10
I was told I would get a ham and pickle sandwich.
WTF! They get broadband? For what? Doing dick and selling crack?
Posted by: Filthy at March 16, 2006 09:09 PM (AvsR8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
87kb generated in CPU 0.019, elapsed 0.0348 seconds.
29 queries taking 0.021 seconds, 154 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.