Saturday, April 30, 2005
So I checked Fox news 3 times a day looking for the transcript.........and finally, a week later it is up! WTF is that........
Anyway Jim had a GREAT line that I just couldn't remember and here it is:
PINKERTON: ...liberal, secular reporters' talk about the Catholic Church reminds me of W.C. Fields reading the Bible. He says, "I'm looking for loopholes." Looking for ways out.
This line is the best, it is SOOOO true and needs to be reread because this is exactly what the liberals are doing and do about everything. They did it with Saddam, the NorKs, Sandy Berger, Oh yea, remember it is all about what is, is.
PINKERTON: ...liberal, secular reporters' talk about the Catholic Church reminds me of W.C. Fields reading the Bible. He says, "I'm looking for loopholes." Looking for ways out.
Here is the rest of that posting with the forgotten line in place:
Today's Fox News Watch held three quotes about religion that made this episode a stand out in media punditry.
All are paraphrased as I didn't write them down:
- Hey, the liberal media just doesn't understand that the ten commandments aren't a voluntary initiative - Cal describing the media failure to understand that the Pope is in fact Catholic.
- PINKERTON: ...liberal, secular reporters' talk about the Catholic Church reminds me of W.C. Fields reading the Bible. He says, "I'm looking for loopholes." Looking for ways out.
- Even Hollywood atheists can have their prayers answered! Jim describing the success of the NBC production Revelations.
Friday, April 29, 2005
(Regaining the Offensive - 4/16/2005 Where I said:Republicans have to get back on offense and force a REAL fillibuster - you know, the Mr. Smith performance just like the Dem's are running in their ads! Should the Democrats actually be able to pull that off then use the constitutional option, but one way or another force this issue!)
Well, Dick Morris (who was so far off on so many things during the general election) makes a very good arguement for exactly what I suggested.
Read it here A better option on judges: Bring on a real filibuster.
Frist and the GOP need to let the Democrats demonstrate how noxious the filibuster really is before they try to explain to America why they are curtailing it. And the best way to do that is to let the Democrats deploy their weapon. Call their bluff. And let ’er rip!
I couldn't agree with the idea any more if I had said it myself, say two weeks ago.
I quoted the Washington Post earlier this week — specifically noting a comment by former senior State Department counterterrorism official Larry Johnson:
"They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing."
Larry Johnson, on his blog, April 14:
It is tough to argue we are winning the war on terrorism when the numbers in the official Government report will show the largest number of incidents ever recorded since the State Department started reporting on terrorist incidents. In the Secretary's defense, however, the sharp jump in numbers has more to do with a change in methodololgy of counting rather that an actual surge in Islamic extremist activity. In fact, if you take time to parse the numbers, the actual scope of terrorism by Islamic extremists in 2004 appeared to decline relative to the attacks during 2003 (except for Iraq).
I'd like to thank the Washington Post for not quoting that comment of Johnson, and burying the line, "administration aides sought to explain the rise in attacks as the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, which they argued made year-to-year comparisons 'increasingly problematic,' sources said" wayyyyy down in the ninth paragraph, of a story headlined, "U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism."
Can't let those inconvenient facts get in the way of the "we're losing the war on terror" storyline.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
SCREW the ACLU!!!
Health and blogger didn't allow me to get back to this so it will have to wait, sorry!
I did watch the President tonight though, I admire anyone who tells it like it is and that man sure does!
Now if we could only get the Senate to remember that he won the election!
My follow up to the ACLU BlogBurst will either be this weekend or at next weeks Stop the ACLU Blogburst! Till then be sure to stop in at Stop the ACLU for a very comprehensive rundown of what the ACLU is up to and how it affects your life today!
Thursday Stop the ACLU Blogburst - Posted By Jay at Stop The ACLU Blog, stop in there and get regular updates on the ACLU's anti-American activities. Like I have said many times, the left loves the America of their dreams but hates what America really is and will do anything to destroy that. (See: Theories and Dreams)
The ACLU Vs. National Security
Perhaps there is no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn’t seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed.
“Absolute” is the key word to understanding the ACLU. Its absolutist philosophies, just as any extremist view, endangers the very civil liberties it claims to protect.
In his book “Twilight of Liberty”, William Donahue compares Halperins views of liberty with that of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country, by scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us: thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
“There is no doubting the ACLU’s concern that there are untrustworthy public officials who will invoke national security as a cloak to cover their own wrongdoings; the pages of history are full of them. But does that mean that the only proper response is to make absolute the Bill of Rights, even in those clear-cut instances when the nation’s viability is seriously called into question: It is fair to say that most who have studied the question would prefer to side with Jefferson on this matter” Twilight of Liberty pg 172
There is probably no other time that a proper balance between civil liberties and national security becomes more important than in wartime. During times of war, sometimes unusual responses are implemented, often requiring suspension of certain liberties. Of course war opens the opportunity for abuse by governments, and the ACLU are right to watch for them. However, the ACLU in its absolutist perception of freedom, only worries about one side of the equation, civil liberties. It pays no attention to the national security side of things, not only ignoring it, but in many cases working against it.
It is nothing new for the ACLU. The grew out of an organized effort to protest World War I. The only exception to their anti-war stance was World War II, and part of that is due to the investigation during this time into the theory they could be a Communist Front group.
“From 9-11 to the present day, the ACLU has vigorously opposed every governmental attempt to more effectively protect the American people’s security. It sued, for example, to prevent the implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was passed in November 2001 and included a citizenship requirement for airport screeners. It organized protests against a “discriminatory” Justice Department and INS registration system requiring male “temporary visitors” to the US from 25 Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. It condemned the FBI’s “discriminatory” plan to count and document every mosque in the US. It protested when FBI and Homeland Security agents recently tried to track down illegal Iraqi immigrants they deemed dangerous. In Illinois, the ACLU actually set up a hotline designed to give free legal advice to undocumented Iraqis facing deportation. Former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser casually dismissed Americans’ concerns about illegal immigration, chalking such sentiments up to a “wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.”
“The ACLU further claims that the Patriot Act has created an Orwellian big government of unprecedented proportions. “Under the new Ashcroft guidelines,” reads one of its disingenuous press releases, “the FBI can freely infiltrate mosques, churches and synagogues and other houses of worship, listen in on online chat rooms and read message boards even if it has no evidence that a crime might be committed.” Curiously, the ACLU does not mention that the FBI already had the authority to take these measures long before the Bush administration took power. Nor does the ACLU point out that the FBI can wiretap only after showing a court that the suspect is affiliated with a foreign terrorist group or government – the very same requirement instituted 25 years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”.
“What the ACLU is actually rebelling against is the Justice Department’s recent removal of Clinton-era intelligence-gathering restrictions that had crippled the government’s ability to fight terrorism. These restrictions prohibited intelligence investigators from conferring and sharing information with criminal investigators, even if they were both trailing the very same suspect who was plotting a terrorist act. On August 29, 2001, for instance, an FBI investigator in New York desperately pleaded for permission to initiate an intensive manhunt for al-Qaeda operative Khalid Almihdar, who was known to be planning something big. The Justice Department and the FBI deputy general counsel’s office both denied the request, explaining that because the evidence linking Almihdar to terrorism had been obtained through intelligence channels, it could not legally be used to justify or aid an FBI agent’s criminal investigation; in short, it would constitute a violation of Almihdar’s “civil rights.” “Someday, someone will die,” the agent wrote to his FBI superiors, “and the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.” Thirteen days later, Almihdar took over the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the PentagonExerpt Front Page Magazine
One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”
All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy!
As these policy changes indicate, balancing national security interests and civil liberties is not a goal of the ACLU. Its only goal is the absolute pursuit of unlimited civil liberties, with no regard to any consequence or negative impact upon our security. Not only does it ignore the issue of national security, but there are many examples I have shown where they actually work against it, even to the point of defending the enemy. The absolute tragedy is that it is not only the nations’s security the ACLU’s absolutist philosophy puts in danger, but the very cause of liberty itself. We’ve also saw recently the attitude of the ACLU to securing our borders, again civil liberties trump national security.
It pursues its radical agenda with your taxdollars.
Crossposted at Stop The ACLU
This was a Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join please
Sites Already on Board:
Stop The ACLU
Freedom Of Thought
The Wide Awakes
Angry Republican Mom
What Attitude Problem?
An American Housewife
A Tic In The Mind’s Eye
Is This Life?
Patriots For Bush
California Conservative 4 Truth
Xtreme Right Wing
Birth Of A Neo-Con
The Nose On Your Face
Please stop by the ACLUBulldozer online store and pick up a bumper sticker or t-shirt. All proceeds go to advertising for a national march on state ACLU offices. Help put an end to the evils of the Most Dangerous Organization in America
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
"I was talking to my friend Laura, who sings on [my latest] record, and we're both getting to the point where we want to start families. We're convinced that if we have children, we're going to do everything in our power to make them gay. Like maybe drinking a lot of extra soy milk while she's pregnant, or anything that would work to make that happen. I'd just rather have a really sharp, interesting, smart gay son than some big dumb hetero meathead."What an idiot - I can't believe that the gay left isn't up in arms over this! But as is typical they are nearly fawning over him!
Oh sure, it may sound good, look how open minded that wonderful Moby is, but any gay man who is honest will tell you that if (and that is a BIG IF as I can tell you we had no choice in our orientation) they had been given a choice they would have chosen to be straight.
No one in their right mind would choose to have an albino child would they? How about a dwarf child?
Well, would they? These are NOT illnesses but genetic equations!
Really if you had to sit down and choose for your child, come on seriously!
Why would you choose for your child to be in that position. Sure they can get along fine and even be successful but it sure is a struggle that NO SANE PARENT would choose for their child because no parent, who can look outside their own selfish desires, would choose to have their child struggle at anything!
As a gay man the idiocy of his entire thought pattern is offensive! He wants a gay child because it is fashionable and with a gay child he has a much greater chance of having a child who believes what he believes!
That is it. It is all about Moby and his purely selfish motives. Moby wants to be able to brag to his "Enlightened" friends and Moby fears that Moby would ever have to admit that Moby's child was a conservative - something that, based on this statement would hurt Moby more then any pain and struggle Moby would willingly force upon his child. And trust me, there isn't a gay man alive who hasn't experienced great pain in his life.
Selfish hypocrisy in it's naked beauty!
See, as a gay man there actually is a choice, but not the one you would expect.
The ONLY choice is weather to be honest and live as you were born, be true to yourself and this is a painful choice. Imagine giving up what is often called the American Dream! No wife, no biological children, no wedding, possible discrimination in work and housing, and often the distancing from your family.
None of these are good experiences and they are something our society should no longer tolerate, but it happens just as it happens to albino's and dwarfs. See man really isn't good with people who are different then we are. Oh sure, Moby's "Enlightened" society is probably extremely accepting - of gays at least! But try getting acceptance if you are a conservative. After all he once called this president, "a big fucking liar!"
Moby's hatred of anyone who might dare to have a different belief system is so strong that he would willingly use his own child as a pawn in his great selfish "Enlightened" game!
And for that he is an idiot and he disgusts me!
Monday, April 25, 2005
Why the 180 Mr. Kerry?
Send this PDF form 180 to his Senate email.
Join the blogburst Cao's Blog
Kerry 180 Blogburst
And Rightly So!
House Of Wheels
International House of Conservatism
Jay Howard Smith
My Vast Rightwing Conspiracy
Pooklekufr: The Kafir Constitutionalist
Power and Control
Ravings Of A Mad Tech
Something...and Half of Something
Stop the ACLU
The Creative Conservative
The Dark Citadel
The Sunnyeside Of Life
Where's Your Brain?
Obviously this is outrageous! It is outrageous that a child was that out of control and disruptive and it is outrageous that this officer handcuffed a five year old!
But let's keep in mind what brought us to this point:
- A child that was out of control, attacked her teacher and clearly didn't have the support and discipline at home (the officer had met the child when she was with the mother but out of control I believe)
- A school system so poisoned by the left and paralyzed by fear of lawsuits and the possibility that a little discipline may harm the child's self esteem that there is no discipline or control.
- A society that will sue anytime for anything, imagine if the child were injured because of any action on the part of the school - or injured because of inaction (she was climbing on the furniture for God's sake).
Now, thanks to criminals that won't respond to police instruction and their wonderfully successful lawyers there is very little lee way in the handling of suspects! So what are the officers options?
- Attempt to calm the suspect - check.
- Stop and do nothing despite the fact that the child has been climbing on furniture, running around and hitting people - not a good option, she is a potential danger to herself and others.
- Mace the child - um, ouch bad option, harmful and exposure to legal action - next
- Shoot the child - oooow, even worse option - next.
- Forcibly detain and handcuff the child before she injures herself (or anyone else) - done!
A society that has forced itself, through the use of civil lawsuits, to remove any common sense or flexibility from our actions is a society that will handcuff each and every 5 year old or risk the rath of the left and their lawyers!
Sunday, April 24, 2005
No, I am not talking about Hubbert's (or Hubbard's?) Peak, Peak Oil or what ever moonbat theory about the control of the world by Oil you may subscribe to. Lets face it, our economy runs on oil and when it becomes financially advantageous for someone to develop an alternative then someone will develop a reasonable alternative - not a day before and not a day after.
What concerns me is something that has been involved in human history far longer then oil and, based on recent samplings and observations appears to be nearly exhausted. Fresh samples aren't being produced and there is a limited known quantity of it's base components and no more of these components can be produced.
I am talking about music, yes folks music! I love music, am passionate about music - can't put in to words how much I love music - virtually all types of music (with the exception of Jazz and some Blues and hip hop- jazz is just too unstructured and blues is just too blue and I can't understand or sing hip hop.)
Lets face it, there is a limited number of notes and a limited number of combinations that are acceptable. Man has made music for our entire history using those same notes, eventually we will run out of combinations to make new music. I like to call this eventual dry spell TDTMD (the day the music died).
I believe we are experiencing TDTMD already and it is most evident in hip hop, (which is another reason I don't like hip hop) - after all if a top hit could be sung by Tevia as easily as Gwen Steffani there is a serious problem (see Rich Girl right out of Fiddler on the Roof!)
Now it is very possible that we haven't yet reached TDTMD, it may be that it is just easier to reuse the old music and takes less talent, energy, and effort to recycle the old standards. That is possible, but come on - old Police songs, Austin Powers themes (including evil lines from the movie), Martika's Toy Soldiers, Mockingbird with MM's own twist and backing da da da da da da da of 3 or 4 notes that is used to make it sound new - aren't these clear signs that, if we aren't at TDTMD yet, then we are clearly approaching it quickly!
Unfortunately there have been no studies to show definitively how much music is left or how quickly we are depleting our music resources - of course that hasn't stopped those "experts" who tell us we are running out of oil. Despite the fact that we have NO IDEA how much oil there is and we know how many musical notes there are!
We can't say for sure when we will approach TDTMD, if we aren't there, but I fear for our civilization when that day arrives. Of course I also fear what it means for our civilization if our top artists are just too damn lazy or untalented to make new music but that is a discussion for another day isn't it!