February 07, 2007
CJ celebrates Black History Month
The knee-jerk liberal response to violence in urban black communities is to blame inanimate instrumentalities instead of examining the potential societal, cultural, and economic factors. What is ironic is that minority groups that were historically victimized by government controls on guns now cry the loudest for gun control laws, including total prohibition. For example, liberal Jews in America have apparently forgotten, or choose to ignore, how the Nazis disarmed Jews before persecuting them.
The same shortsighted focus on gun availability and possession afflicts most African American political leaders. Ken Blackwell reminds us today that gun control has also been used as a tool for black control:
...restrictive gun laws have long been employed to the benefit of a select elite while circumscribing the liberty of populations less popular or less powerful.
Gun control measures, from the slave gun bans of the 1700s South to the Brady Bill regulations of the 1990s have unfairly targeted black Americans and have worked to curtail a disproportionate number of their constitutional rights. Access to firearms was understood by our founders and many early American jurists as an essential aspect of full US citizenship, and it was for this reason that the Black Codes established after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment -- which constitutionally abolished slavery -- prevented black freemen from owning guns.
In prohibiting blacks from exercising the freedoms granted other Americans in the Second Amendment, the Black Codes emphasized the notion that African-Americans were not true citizens with full human rights.
Such lessons from the past are lost on the demagogues on the left--both black and white. And sadly, the public in areas afflicted by urban violence tend not to realize that gun control is, at its core, not about guns, but about control.
Posted by GadsdenFlag at 09:38 AM | Comments (0)
October 16, 2006
Lynne Stewart
Lynne Stewart will be sentenced today and, facing 30 years in the slammer is, of course, asking for leniency. Here's a recap of why Stewart belongs in prison -- in short, aiding a jailed terrorist in carrying out My personal favorite, though, is her quote to the NY Times in 1995: "I don't believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support."
Yup, lock her up.
Posted by bill at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)
September 19, 2006
Exhibit 9 million something
For those of you who needed one more reason to believe Al Gore would make a lousy president, etc. word comes that Ted Turner is endorsing him.
Posted by bill at 09:42 PM | Comments (0)
August 29, 2006
Spitzer, Cuomo, Clinton, Schumer, Barf
Gadsden Flag emails this article on NY Gubernatorial shoe-in Eliot Spitzer ("no book, no bad press, nothing short of an asteroid can knock out Eliot Spitzer right now"), previewing what he will and will not be doing after he's elected in November. The news is not all bad; the article concludes that "[t]he groups that will do the most to elect him—unions, liberals, minority voters—will blanch at the compounds Spitzer wants to mix in the New York laboratory." And he's not George Pataki.
Posted by bill at 08:55 PM | Comments (1)
July 28, 2006
Friday diversion
Steven Colbert ("KOHL-bare") at his best.
Posted by bill at 11:44 AM | Comments (1)
July 19, 2006
Civics 101
Attention voters: If you takes a lottery ticket, concerts, cigarettes, etc. to be convinced to exercise your right to vote, you should not be voting anyway.
To be clear: Arizona's lotto-ballot proposal is likely to result in a higher number of uninformed, disinterested voters. And as a result of this, they'll probably vote Democrat - Mr. Osterloh isn't pursuing this stupidity to generate Republican votes. This is precisely the same reason the federal "Motor Voter" law, seeped though it was in apparent good intentions, was a bad idea.
Posted by bill at 09:49 PM | Comments (0)
June 21, 2006
The ravages of political correctness
When one of Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich's political appointees, Robert Smith, had the gall to say that "Homosexual behavior, in my view, is deviant. I'm a Roman Catholic," the Governor faced a choice: fire Smith for the transgression of committing a thought crime; or not fire Smith, then face accusations the Governor protected Smith's "hate speech." Bear in mind Smith's appointment is to the board of the metro transit authority -- not quite a nerve center for anti-gay policy-making. Still, Ehrlich took the easiest path, and fired Smith.
I have to think that Ray Bradbury's fictional firemen would approve. Anyway, as John Leo describes, if it's true that calling homosexuality "deviant" is grounds for dismissal and "unacceptable," gays are evidently the next "favored class" in America. Wonder how blacks feel about this?
Posted by bill at 01:43 PM | Comments (0)
June 12, 2006
Way better than coffee
Via Michelle Malkin:
I'll take the "bimbo" over the witch any day.
Posted by bill at 09:01 AM | Comments (0)
May 23, 2006
Dances with irrelevance
For it, against it...I can't keep track. The Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh's exuberant that John Kerry's "new position on Iraq" means he "has finally found his voice":
The senator, who used the weekend announcement of Iraq's new government to highlight his plan again yesterday, says he's trying to offer the country an alternative -- one he will soon present as a Senate amendment to the defense budget.
``It is not going to pass, and I understand that," Kerry said in a Friday interview. "The purpose of it is to point out to the country that there really is a different way to approach Iraq and to protect American troops and our interests."
The Bush administration, of course, is highly unlikely to adopt his blueprint. If not, "they will be morally bankrupt for creating a Vietnam II decent-interval withdrawal situation or a stay-the-course policy," Kerry said. "Either way, it is a loss for the United States of America. It is unacceptable both morally and practically."
Posted by bill at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2006
More than $45 billion and still serving
Indicted: Big Democratic contributor and uber plaintiffs' law firm Milberg Weiss:
One of the nation's highest profile class-action law firms, two of its top partners, and two other individuals were indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges alleging a scheme that paid millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to plaintiffs and others.
In a 102-page indictment, New York-based Milberg Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, and attorneys David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman were charged with secretly paying about $2.4 million to co-defendant Seymour M. Lazar, a Palm Springs lawyer, and others to act as plaintiffs in class-actions since 1984 and concealing the payments. Paul L. Seltzer, another lawyer in Palm Springs, was also charged.
Milberg Weiss is a corporate ambulance chasing firm, organizing massive shareholder suits and obtaining gargantuan judgments and settlements - more than $45 billion, according the firm's website. The indictment involves Milberg's end-around regarding procedural rules for class actions - paying Seymour to serve as the "lead" plaintiff, and thereby open the dike for the firm to file suit, take the lead in accumulating plaintiffs (clients) and certifying a "class." It was a scheme to win the race with other law firms to represent class action plaintiffs, and Milberg perfected it - the firm, its practice and its apparent corruption is the creature of a corrupt system that needs reforming.
Seymour was incicted almost a year ago for taking improper payments from MW, and Milberg's goose has long since been cooked. Let's see if any of this sticks to Democrats -- who received millions from MW in the 2002 election cycle alone. Remember their opposition even to last year's procedural limitation on class actions? I'm not saying. I'm just saying.
Posted by bill at 09:37 PM | Comments (1)
March 02, 2006
Do you know what your kids are learning?
Teachers are liberals, mostly, and that's fine. One Social Studies teacher of mine used to tell his classes, "I'm a non-Marxist economic determinist; and I'm the only non-socialist in the Social Studies department." Many of us despised him, for other reasons, but most of his colleagues despise him, too, precisely because he would constantly remind us to be on guard for political rants. But that's so 1990's. Today there's nothing like some prostelitizing tripe to go along with geography lesson. Here is the audio of teacher Jay Bennish in front of his 10th-grade class, but hitting the MoveOn anti-everything talking points instead of teaching much to do with "World Geography." Let's see whether the NEA has anything to say.
Posted by bill at 12:55 PM | Comments (0)
February 10, 2006
Stop the ACLU
Stop the ACLU celebrates its 1 year blogiversary with "Top Ten Myths About the ACLU," which is a tremendous list of things the ACLU would prefer we'd never know.
Posted by bill at 09:48 AM | Comments (0)
January 20, 2006
Stiff competition
I won't ruin the suspense but the award for the Dumbest Thing Said By a Senator at the Alito Hearings goes to...
(H/T: RFDTH.)
Posted by bill at 12:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 17, 2006
Doing what Democrats must do
If you haven't heard already, Hillary Clinton got down with her bad self yesterday. After complaining the Democrats have been "powerless" since she and Bill left the White House, Cliton said the House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about." "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
The racist Reverand Al Sharpton was there, too.
Michelle Malkin has links.
Posted by bill at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 16, 2006
Prostituting MLK's memory
In December 2003, Al Gore visited Harlem to announce his support for Howard Dean's White House campaign. Gore's introductory remarks were absurd: "I'm really proud and happy to be here with you. It's great to be back in Harlem. We shot basketball together one of the last times I was here."
The condescension continues. Last week Michelle Malkin previewed the left's plans to use MLK day to advance their anti-war agenda, their purported "national movement calling on Bush to step down and take his whole program of immoral war, bigotry, intolerance, and suppression of science" and the minimum wage, and to provide a soap box for Harry Belafonte, who thinks President Bush is the "greatest terrorist in the world." Today the hoop dreamy Gore piled on, too, delivering a tirade that had little to do with MLK's struggle and everything to do with Gore's palpable disgust for Bush. In doing so Gore came closer than anyone else has to think point of accusing the President of impeachable transgression. "What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping," he said, "virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently."
If Gore wants to offer up whatever's left of his self-respect as an impeachment trial baloon, that's a-okay with me. But it's something else entirely to sleaze up an occasion intended to honor legitimate struggle with illegitimate revenge. Gore and the rest of the loons will get away with this, of course, though American blacks' tolerating it is just as absurd as Gore's "black-audience-means- basketball-talk" logic. it. In any case, judge for yourself - the speech is here.
Posted by bill at 05:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 11, 2005
Code Pink: Transform America into a nation of pansies
I've been out of the loop since Thursday night, so this may be old news. Code Pink, a band of very ugly women who happen to hate President Bush, is recommending parents avoid "war toys" this Christmas:
Every holiday season manufactures prey on our children with pro-war propaganda disguised as innocent toys. Don't let your child be a victim of G.I. Joe! As you're out buying holiday gifts, make a point this year to show little ones that war is not game. Set an example for the children in your life and use the opportunity to teach them non-violence.
CP also urges followers to vandalize:
Place "surgeon general-type" warning labels on war toys in the stores. Simple mailing labels that you can print off at home are perfect for this action. Use the samples below or get creative and design your own.
They also provide downloadable .pdfs of labels:
So much to say. But I enjoyed this email on the topic, from a colleague of mine:
I do not buy my son "war toys." I do buy my son real guns and knives. He has a Red Ryder BB gun, a .22 Marlin rifle, a H&R 20 gauge single-shot shotgun, 3 Swiss Army knives, and a Leatherman tool. I think I'm getting him another clip-knife this year. He hasn't shot or stabbed anybody yet.
Posted by bill at 03:52 PM | Comments (0)
December 04, 2005
Diagnosing the feds
One of last year's mega-hits with the Bush haters was a documentary called, "The Corporation." It was a hit because it embodied one of the themes today's liberals love: that big business subjugates hard-working Americans and is otherwise contributing to decay and demise, etc. The film's driving theme was that corporations, juridical "persons" under the law, have the "personality" of a psychopath. It was also an opportunity for people who hated George Bush to go to a movie theater and find more reasons to hate George Bush, which seemed to be driving most of last year's creative thought among documentary filmmakers.
One problem with The Corporation's approach is that it makes too much of corporations' "personhood" under the law. That personhood gives corporations legal identity - beyond that they're run by people, not a collective conscience. The film's theory that corporations compel decent folk to do awful things to one another is a simply-minded one(especially so, I'd have thought, to John Kerry nuance crowd) is its escape hatch, one that I didn't think was quite proven.
Anyway, around the time The Corporation was released a Bush-hating co-worker of mine told me about the "psychopath" theme and snickered at me and my pro-business values. I replied by asking her whether there'd ever been a documentary diagnosing the personality of the federal government. After all, if we're talking in the collective, wouldn't the federal government have some "personality" too? I didn't get a response.
I was thinking about all of this when I read about the NY Daily News report about how our government pissed away millions of post-9/11 rebuilding funds which, after all, is our money. Corruption and pork seemed to have devoured them. It's a shame, I guess, but is anyone really surprised? Maybe someone will make a documentary. Then again, I doubt it.
Posted by bill at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
More patriotic dissent from the left
Ted Rall is an anti-American dickhead. His latest (via Newsbusters.org):
Rall exemplifies why, as Tony Blankley writes, President Bush should declare war on radical Islam. Rall might then be censored, even thrown in jail. There exists a point at which dissent becomes sedition, and Rall is breezing past it. Until the government has authority to shut him up, we can only hope that someday, he'll piss off the wrong US veteran.
[UPDATE: I'll acknowledge a mistake -- sloppiness on my part -- the President cannot "declare" war. The president can wage war, acting as Commander-in-chief and in defense of the US but only Congress can declare war.]
Posted by bill at 01:52 PM | Comments (0)
November 27, 2005
Consider the alternative
Republicans deserve every bit of criticism they've seen recently from conservatives. Many of us still shake our head at how quickly the White House and Congress squandered last November's mojo. But some perspective is in order and, as usual, Democrats are unwittingly providing it. Today's installment comes by way of New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. You may recall Richardson's frightening incompetence in the face of (and leading to) massive security breaches at Los Alamos National Laboratories. Richardson's June 2000 appearance on Meet the Press defending his handling of Chinese espionage (I wish I could find a transcript) was absolutely petrifying.
Richardson will likely run for President in 2008 and so it's fair to wonder why the hell he's in the running. His latest foible, revealed last week, is that his age-old claim that he was drafted by the Oakland Athletics was, at best, more evidence of bumbling incompetence and, at worst, a pitiful lie. It was, of course, a lie, unless we're to believe Richardson was fooled into believing he was drafted, in which case the man is an idiot. That Democrats see Richardson as a viable candidate for anything beyond overseeing a bake sale should be comforting to Republicans.
Tracked here.
Posted by bill at 06:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 21, 2005
Senator Kennedy's Bad Timing
Ted Kennedy's column today over at Huffington Post was typically flaccid rhetoric from the Senator, attacking Wal Mart's "shameful tactics to boost profits at the expense of the families of hard-working men and women." Kennedy complains that the 1990s' "Main Street Merchant of Doom" subjugates women, minorities and hard working Americans and it puts vintage t-shirt companies out of business, and the Senator's had enough. The resulting edict was the "Ten Commandments of Good Corporate Citizenship," which functionally speaking is the domestic policy talking points memo for the post-Moynihan left.
But Kennedy's were at their core purely economic complaints, and one consequence of that and the Senator's poor sense of timing was the laughably ironic coincidence of Kennedy's column and General Motors' announcement, just in time for Thanksgiving, that it would be letting go 30,000 workers. GM's problems represent the nasty truth of the union-enforced welfare system Kennedy espouses. It was in May, and in the midst of GM's decline, that George Will described GM's problems as largely resembling what Kennedy seeks to impose on Wal Mart, ones that transformed GM from a car-maker into a welfare state, hence its Herb Stein moment today.
Posted by bill at 08:41 PM | Comments (0)
Dear Democratic Underground
Readers: My first letter to DU went unanswered. Here's another go.
Dear Democratic Underground,
Please consider me for your "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" list. I support my President and his conduct of the war on terrorism, despite his faults, and I believe in all that free market stuff, America's greatness, and the human spirit. I liked Ronald Reagan, don't think Patrick Buchanan is Satan and have never attended any war protests or NYU, or shouted down Bill O'Reilly at the Fox News studios. I think CNN is more biased than Fox, and I pay $.75 for my coffee every morning. Moreover, I am grateful to be an American citizen and think French people should work harder and take a more showers. I also think Kos and his daddy would benefit from psychiatric help.
In short, I feel I am qualified to be included on your list. Please consider my interest. I am happy to provide more information as needed.
Regards,
Bill Lalor
wlalor@citizen-journal.net
UPDATE: More on DU here.
Posted by bill at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 16, 2005
Shameless
President Clinton told Arab students the US invastion of Iraq was a "mistake." Whadda douche.
The Political Teen has Exhibit A and more on Democrats' twisting.
Need to do: Technorati Profile
Posted by bill at 08:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 13, 2005
On dilettante sex fiends and Huffington populism
Mark Steyn's latest is a look at Warren Beatty's recent doings. LOL entertainment as usual.
Posted by bill at 08:11 PM | Comments (0)
November 02, 2005
Dems try to stay on message, even in the absence of one.
Yesterday Bill Frist complained that Democrats had hijacked the Senate, but it's probably as accurate for Democrats to complain Harry Reid and the wingnuts who love him so had hijacked the Democratic Party. This isn't anything new, but yesterday may well have marked the demise of Daniel Patrick Moynihan liberalism. Reid and his compadres, for whom Plame-gate had become a proxy fight over pre-war WMD intelligence, must've been bitterly disappointed last week when Karl Rove, whom they've never learned to defeat in an election, wasn't indicted. They'd also hoped Dick Cheney-burton, their other anti-Christ, would find himself wearing a grocery bag hat, but that won't happen either. Last week was indeed a bad one for them, and October a terrible month.
It's absurd to believe the White House would't use the Alito announcement to draw attention from Libby's indictment and its residual chatter. But Reid, too, hated losing momentum in the headlines. The Senate's Rule 22 permits two Senators to close the American public out of deliberations, and history suggests it is to be reserved for monumental, even grave issues facing the Republic. That Reid had the capital to invoke Rule 22 to advance a brainless vendetta suggests the demise of the Democratic Party is all but complete.
Posted by bill at 10:49 AM | Comments (0)
October 03, 2005
Bad sign: Kos sees Miers pick as a big win
The conservative blogosphere is furious about President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers. And despite a few who are willing to accept Miers on the strength of Bush's word (e.g., Hugh Hewitt), maybe the best clue as to how awful the pick is can be found at liberal websites. Kos, for example, says "Sit back enjoy," not only mocking conservatives' disappointment but acknowledging that "Miers' biggest sin, at this early juncture, is her allegiance to Bush. That her appointment is an act of cronyism is without a doubt, but if that's the price of admission to another Souter or moderate justice, I'm willing to pay it....But my early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats." "Democrats are fully aboard," he continues, and they're following the lead of Sen. Harry Reid, of all people. More? As one commenter at the loony Democratic Underground notes, "Considering whom [Bush]COULD have picked...this is a hell of a lot better."
After poking around a bit, there seems to be a consensus on the left: the Miers pick was a win for Democrats. Ugh.
Posted by bill at 12:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 26, 2005
Nattering nabobs in Iowa
Stranger than fiction: A University of Iowa professor says the school is violating NCAA regs by having pink locker rooms for opposing football teams. Professor Erin Buzuvis frets, "With a pink locker room, you're saying that 'You are a girlie man. You are weak, like a girl,'" Buzuvis said. "That implies that girls are nondominant, therefore, lesser. And that is offensive."
Not pink, actually, but "Dusty Rose," and the idea originated with Iowa's legendary coach Hayden Fry. The Des Moines Register is on the scene, reporting:
Fry ordered the walls of the old visiting locker room at Kinnick painted pink. A psychology major, Iowa's football coach reasoned that the soothing color might placate some of the savage beasts that had pounded on the Hawkeyes for much of the 1970s.
And, heck, if that didn't work, it would at least give them something to think about - and complain about - rather than focus on the game. The old fox never missed a trick.
Today, the Dark Rose offense extends beyong wall paint and, it seems, into urinals, etc. I'm not sure what to make of this. My beloved Penn State's school colors (they're now blue and white) were once black and pink (everything faded in the sun). Evolving standards of girlie-mannishness? Anyway, more here.
Posted by bill at 08:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 23, 2005
Back to Reality
Bill makes a spurious assumption in his post "Will the real black America please stand up?". As a genuine black person, I can say that I speak for myself, much as Bill speaks for himself. The Congressional Black Caucus gives voice, as is appropriate, to views that are widespread among the constituents of the members of the CBC. Has Bill been to Harlem recently? It is not Bush country. Charles Rangel is speaking for his voters, and all conservatives should welcome diversity of opinion as an essential aspect of a well-functioning republic.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 02:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Will the real black America please stand up?
The Congressional Black Caucus:
was formed in 1969 when the 13 black members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined together to strengthen their efforts to address the legislative concerns of black and minority citizens. African-American representatives had increased in number from six in 1966 to nine, following the 1969 elections. Those members believed that a black caucus in Congress, speaking with a single voice, would provide political influence and visibility far beyond their numbers.
At the CBC's 35th Legislative Conference, one might think those in attendance would be discussing how to represent those who are supposedly given a voice by the CBC - black Americans. But one would be mistaken. Instead, they've opted for buffoonery. As the NY Sun reports, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) was greeted with cheers as he likened President Bush to Theophilus "Bull" Connor
He cited, of course, Bush-made Hurricane Katrina and war-mongering because, well, what else? Question is, why doesn't black America denounce this nonsense?
(H/T: Dean from downtown.)
Posted by bill at 12:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 21, 2005
Senate Dems: Big Liars
Pat Leahy's announcement today that he'll vote to confirm John Roberts is, I think, the strongest indication yet of the Dems' cynical master plan. Leahy et al. will portray themselves as "reasonable" by voting for Roberts (with no risk; Roberts-for-Rehnquist is, in their peabrains, a wash (or is saleable as such)). Replacing the swing vote, Justice O'Connor, could be anything but that, and Leahy and his cohorts, wearing their white hats, will simply ambush the President's nominee to replace her. With the support of MSM, they'll smear that person as some combination of racist (using softer language), sexist, "homophobic," "reactionary," etc. [read: opposes affirmative action; once wrote that Roe v. Wade is bunk and/or not "super-duper" precedent; and doesn't believe in legislation by judicial fiat]. And no one Bush nominates will be good enough for Senate liberals.
Maybe the biggest question now is whether the White House is cynical (or ballsy?) enough to bluff - to nominate someone they don't believe can be confirmed, on the assumption the second, "real" nominee would be confirmed. Who would volunteer for the smackdown?
Posted by bill at 12:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 19, 2005
I couldn't have drawn it better myself
Via Lucianne.com.
Posted by bill at 02:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 18, 2005
Bubba turns on W
Maybe President Bush should replace Bill Clinton with Donna Brazile. Yesterday I noted that Brazile had written a refreshingly patriotic column, one I thought was a call to the American left to put politics aside where post-Katrina is concerned. This morning during a taped interview airing on Meet the Press, Clinton turned on Bush, lumping together, as liberals seem fond of doing, Iraq, the deficit and Katrina into an anti-W polemic. Clinton is, of course, as calculating as politicians come and it's always a crapshoot to discern what his motivations for such things, but whatever the calculus, Clinton's performance is more evidence he and his wife are as cunning and shameless as ever.
Posted by bill at 04:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 17, 2005
Donna Brazile: "ready for duty"
Bravo to Donna Brazile (yes, that Donna Brazille: Democratic strategist, 2000 Al Gore campaign manager, etc.). Brazile is also NOLA native, though, and maybe for that reason she's not content to join the Angry Left's dumbassery after President Bush's speech Thursday night. Writing for the Washington Post:
...on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast....
He enunciated something that we all need to remember: This is America. We are not immune to tragedy here, but we are strong because of our industriousness, our ingenuity and, most important, because of our compassion for one another. We are a nation of rebuilders and a nation of givers. We do not give up in the face of tragedy, we stand up, and we reach out to help those who cannot stand up on their own.
I know, maybe better than anyone, that there are times when it seems that our nation is too divided ever to heal. There are times when we feel so different from each other that we can hardly believe that we are all part of the same family. But we are one nation. We are a family. And this is what we do. When the president asked us to pitch in Thursday night, he wasn't really asking us to do anything spectacular. He was asking us to be Americans, and to do what Americans always do.
Now that's courage. It remains to be seen whether what's left of Brazile's party is up to her challenge. But her point - a patriotic one (gasp!) - is sure to land her in some trouble, and Brazile should be commended.
Posted by bill at 01:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
Just a day in the life...
...of Al Sharpton: after canoodling with the left's plaything, Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, he hops in a Lincoln that recklessly speeds at 2x the posted limit and evades police in a several-minute chase en route to the airport, and then hitch-hikes to the airport, hops in his waiting first-class seat, flies home and excuses himself by accusing the police of lying.
And they say Al Sharpton isn't a serious Presidential candidate. Ha-rumph. Must be racism.
Posted by bill at 07:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 19, 2005
It's the anger, stupid
David Ignatius wonders why Democrats can't get it together:
This should be the Democrats' moment: The Bush administration is caught in an increasingly unpopular war; its plan to revamp Social Security is fading into oblivion; its deputy chief of staff is facing a grand jury probe. Though the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, they seem to be suffering from political and intellectual exhaustion. They are better at slash-and-burn campaigning than governing.
So where are the Democrats amid this GOP disarray? Frankly, they are nowhere. They are failing utterly in the role of an opposition party, which is to provide a coherent alternative account of how the nation might solve its problems. Rather than lead a responsible examination of America's strategy for Iraq, they have handed off the debate to a distraught mother who is grieving for her lost son. Rather than address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, they have decided to play politics and let President Bush squirm on the hook of his unpopular plan to create private Social Security accounts.
Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy.
Ignatius has a point, but it's hardly an original one: see this, this and this.
Posted by bill at 09:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 16, 2005
Something stinks
Independent Sources has a fascinating post on monstrous corporate ambulance-chasing law firm Milberg Weiss, and their fondness for CA Senator Barbara Boxer:
Milberg Weiss and its affiliates have been Senator Boxer's largest contributors from the legal industry. They also gave Boxer $44k in her first term, the 1998 cycle. They are her #4 all-time contributor.
IS also gives a few reasons why Boxer won't be returning those funds, even despite MW's fraud-like stench. "We'll start the clock today," IS says. (H/T: Captain Ed.)
Posted by bill at 08:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 15, 2005
Dean and Dowd - two pea-brains in a pod
Is Howard Dean taking cues from Maureen Dowd? Last week the NY Times' meandrous Mo ridiculed President Bush and the War in Iraq, complaining that women there now are in a "prison": young girls in Iraq are afraid to leave their homes because there are so many kidnappings and rapes, and women's groups in Iraq are terrified that the new constitution will cut women's rights to a Saudiesque level. Yesterday Nutty Howie told CBS' Face the Nation, "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."
A while ago a WSJ column asked for a "constructive opposition" from Democrats, noting, "It's not as if there's no room to criticize the President's policy." Many conservatives agree, but since party loyalty can squelch anti-Bush dissent amonng Republicans, that criticism can be best voiced by Democrats. In the case of women's rights in post-Saddam Iraq, and generally as to what will become of Iraq's relative secularism, and conservative Islamists, there's a debate to be had here, and a concern to be addressed. Unfortunately people like Howard Dean and Mo Dowd -- who, incredibly, are perceived as liberalism's vanguard -- make any real debate impossible. And everyone loses.
UPDATE: More on the theme, courtesy of Alarming News.
Posted by bill at 08:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 09, 2005
More from the Patriotic Left: America the Incompetent
Courtesy Stephen Peray
Posted by bill at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 01, 2005
Dems on Dems
The latest from the liberal echo chamber, New York City: Rick Perlstein tells his Democrat friends, "It's not the message. It's the messenger."
Posted by bill at 09:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Teddy K insults Thurgood Marshall's legacy; accuses brother of "abuse of power"
...at least that seems like a fair reading of EMK's comments today on the President's recess appointment of John Bolton:
It's an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House. ...Bolton arrives at the United Nations with a cloud hanging over his head."
As Drudge points out, JFK appointed Thurgood Marshall to a federal appeals court during a recess appointment in 1961, for political reasons. Does this mean there was a cloud over Marshall's head?
Posted by bill at 02:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2005
Howard Dean hit parade...
...keeps on going:
-- "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is."
-- Republicans "are all about voter suppression."
-- "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is." [Note: Seriously! He said this.]
-- Referring to the Dems' hope for a return to majority party status: "If we want it back, we'll have to buy it back."
Posted by bill at 08:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 18, 2005
Chappaquiddick Anniversary
It seems appropriate to remind everyone that today is the 36th anniversary of the night that a drunk Senator Ted Kennedy drove off the little wooden bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, abandoned poor Mary Jo Kopecne, swam away to save his career, and left her to drown in the murky waters off Martha's Vineyard. He "beat the rap," of course, went on television to tearfully throw himself on the tender mercies of Massachusetts voters, and has been re-elected over and over by them and now enjoys the status of a Democratic Party icon. Mary Jo is still dead.
Posted by Gene Blogger at 02:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 11, 2005
"Core Values?"
The newest Democratic "icon," Senator Barack Obama of Illinois," in office all of six months and already touted as a rock star up there with Teddy Kennedy, put his foot in his mouth in Florida.
"We are trying to decide what our [the Democratic Party's] core values are," he told a wildly-cheering audience. Now, let me see, isn't that the equivalent of saying that, first, neither he nor the rest of that party KNOW what their "core values" are? Far worse in implication is a Senator or a major political party even making that statement, suggesting quite clearly that Obama and his party are not just adrift--core values-wise--but oblivious as to how to achieve their redemption. The point is that the once-great Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, and JFK has no core values anymore and thus finds itself, with more and more frequency, being rejected by the nation's voters. Winning Cleveland and losing Ohio is a case in point. Enclaves -- and single cities -- rarely win national or state elections. Obama's elusive "core values" do.
Posted by Gene Blogger at 10:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 06, 2005
Calling a spade a spade
Don't miss Kieran Lalor's article in the Washington Times. Not only is he my cousin and a CJ contributor, but he's a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the founder of the Eternal Vigilance Society. His column discusses the left's "feigned outrage" at Karl Rove's comments about 9/11 and the left's reaction to it. "Mr. Rove's words are exactly correct," he writes. "The liberal response to September 11, 2001, was pathetic." Kudos, Kieran.
Posted by bill at 07:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Done with Kos
For the past year or so I've been a regular reader of Daily Kos. I bookmarked the site after realizing how well regarded it is among my urban liberal friends, some of whom are thoughtful people. The site was seemingly a tour de force and I wanted to know what he thought, read some comments, etc., and see what, exactly, that grassroots left thinks about the issues on the dais. A year later, I've given up. This post, which likens Republicans to "Al Quaida/Taliban," might have been the crowning blow, but there was certainly a cumulative effect. Irrespective of what caused me to realize it, I've come to understand that Kos represents the very worst vile juvenile leftism offers: name-calling, straw-man demagoguery and unadorned hatred. There's just no point reading, much less trying to comprehend this nonsense. I've done my bit lending an ear to those morons.
More later, I think.
Posted by bill at 01:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 01, 2005
Thursdays with Pelosi
Despite some stiff competition, Nancy Pelosi takes the prize for the dumb-tacular Democratic comments of the week. Take a gander at this exchange yesterday at her press conference:
Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.
Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?
Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.
Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.
Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.
Then, discussing the SCOTUS Ten Commandments decision:
Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?
Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?
Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.
Captain Ed's commentary is a can't miss. As he points out, in the course of just a few questions Pelosi demonstrates she understands neither Congress nor the Supreme Court.
Posted by bill at 07:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 30, 2005
Blue States' Bad Drivers
As the red state/blue state chasm widens, representatives of both sides have been busy pointing fingers across the divide, anxious to show which set of states is: friendlier, more moral; stocking or feeding from the government trough' more charitable, sacrificing more in Iraq; etc. etc. As could be expected, each side brings its own experts and relies on its own set of statistics.
Next? CNN reports on the results of a nationwide (except Hawaii & Alaska) driver's test, and 9 out of the 10 lowest-scoring states (+DC) are blue: 40. Illinois; 41. Florida; 42. Connecticut; 43. California; 44. Maryland; 44. Washington, D.C.; 44. New York; 47. New Jersey; 48. Massachusetts; and 49. Rhode Island.
What does this mean politically? I won't hazard a guess. Anyone else?
Posted by bill at 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2005
...and Stupider Democrats (or, Life imitates Holiday Inn commercials)
From Polipundit, by way of Pundit Review, comes this mind-boggling sophomoric observation from Democratic dingbat Ellen Tauscher.
You know, look, I didn't go to law school but I have watched Law & Order for ten years, and I do believe we have the rule of law that we are not only, uh, adhering to in the United States as a very strong principle, but we're also trying to, by the way, interject it around the world. And we need to stand for it. And not only because it's morally right but because we have our own people at risk if they were captured....
Posted by bill at 08:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 23, 2005
Apologies over substance?
Dean Esmay says Dick Durbin's "un-Trent Lott-like" apology is "good enough" for him. Recalling Lott:
A couple of years ago webloggers helped get former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott fired for not just saying nice things about Strom Thurmond's career as a racist Dixiecrat. At the time I had absolutely no pity on Lott, because instead of just saying, "You know I was just trying to say something nice on the retirement of an old friend, I didn't mean it to sound like it did, sorry about that," Lott stonewalled and refused to admit that he'd said something incredibly stupid, THEN he issued several half-assed and insincere apologies that just made it worse, THEN did a complete 180 even on his former policy positions just to "prove" he wasn't a racist. It had to be damn near the most phony thing I'd ever seen in my life(more after the jump).
Until a few days ago Durbin was well on his way with his own version of the standard "half-assed and insincere apologies" but I've watched the video a few times and while it's hard to discern whether this was "Crap look what I did to my career" or something more sincere. I'm still waiting for Durbin to say "I'm sorry for being a tool of our enemies' propaganda" but I won't hold my breath.
Esmay focuses too much on the apologies. My own starting point for such things is that all politics is dishonest, its personalities fleeting and ideas more important. I don't care all that much for either Lott or Durbin, but by my account the thinking that motivated Durbin's comments is, in 2005, far more dangerous that that which motivated Lott's. Lott unveiled a shocking insensitivity to politics as much as toward minorities - and I don't believe he was capable of leading Senate Republicans; I thought resignation was appropo because he exhibited bad judgment, not because, as some believe, he's a racist/closeted segregationist. In any event, the apology was calculated and the charade pointless.
Same goes for Durbin. He's dangerous not because his comments were stupid but because given their context of his apparent willingness to abet our enemy's propagandists, for political purposes, and no apology will help him now, no matter how clever his speechwriters. Al Jazeera appreciated the fodder and so, no doubt, did the US flag desecration crowd. Durbin's comments were distortion by any measure and gassed up anti-US sentiment far more than it informed whatver debate we should be having about Gitmo.
There is a war going on, and despite the Reuters-type perch assumed by many Democrats ("one man's terrorist..."), we all have to pick a side. In the end Senator Durbin sought political gain because he's too smart, too nuanced and too introspective to support the war effort. So Dick should resign, too.
This will be my last post on Durbin until he makes another blunder. At one point our friends at Lucianne.com banned posts regarding Terri Schiavo because everything had been said that could be said. I think we've reached that point with Durbin.
Posted by bill at 07:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 20, 2005
Dear Democratic Underground:
Please consider me for your "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" list. I support my President and his conduct of the war on terrorism, despite his faults, and I believe in all that free market stuff, America's greatness, and the human spirit. I liked Ronald Reagan, don't think Patrick Buchanan is Satan and have never protested any wars, attended to NYU, or shouted down Bill O'Reilly at the Fox News studios. I think CNN is more biased than Fox, and I pay $.75 for my coffee every morning. Moreover, I am grateful to be an American citizen and think French people should work harder and take a more showers. I think Wonkette is a foul slut, and I think Kos and his daddy would benefit from psychiatric help.
In short, I feel I'm ideally qualified to be included in your list. Please consider my interest. I am happy to provide more information as needed.
Regards,
Bill Lalor
wlalor@citizen-journal.net
Posted by bill at 09:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Left's War on the War on Terrorism
Though more subtle than Senator Dick's awful comments (read Powerline's latest here), the left's snickering over military recruitng problems is just as nauseating.
Maybe that dispiriting negativisism, the message that we're losing and should give up fighting the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" is taking a toll. Maybe 18 year-olds read putrid lies like the recent one about about Marines kipnapping a potential recruit (click here for the hook, line and sinker); or have seen media vultures -- the vast majority of whom have no idea what it might be like to fight in a war against animals with guns -- circle young soldiers guilty of little more than hazing and then sneer as they were convicted and shipped off to prison; maybe potential recruits heard about Ilaro Pantano, and the hell he experienced while our God damn American politicians betrayed him; and maybe they noticed the fretting over "degrading" photos of Saddam Hussein, by the same bunch who take such frequent pleasure in humiliating the Commander-in-Chief. Maybe, too, the putrid Memorial Day protests, the likening (by a U.S. Senator speaking on the Senate floor) of his military to Nazis; the fact that terrorist detainees eat better than military men do; and the pittance of any news about progress and heroes are having their effect. Maybe they watched Farenheit 9/11 and, because they're young, or impressionable, believed the Michael Moore's propaganda.
The White House, and bureaucracy aren't blameless for recruiting problems, either, but give me a break. Powerline sums things up well:
It is hard to escape the sense that some politicians, like some reporters, look back fondly on their anti-Vietnam war days and would like to recreate the same "success" thirty-five years later. Let's hope they fail.
I do hope they fail but some "success," it seems, may already be theirs. Thanks, Democrats!
Posted by bill at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Un-conservatism
I don't like the fact that I cannot post anything here on the Middle East, September 11th and Israel without running the risk of being labeled an "anti-Semite" if I'm not exquisitely sensitive to the words I use and the range of inferences a reader might make. It's a sad truth that even foreign policy can be a casualty of speech policing inasmuch as Israel is involved. But this website is supposed to cut through the jib jab, aye?
I was thinking about all of this when I learned of the DNC's headache over the distribution of "material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration's Iraq policy," one run by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). MORE AFTER THE JUMP
The DNC website describes the incident as follows:
...some members of the audience took it upon themselves to distribute anti-Semitic literature at the Wasserman Conference room where an overflow crowd observed the proceedings on television.
Reports the AP:
One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world," a statement Dean also condemned.
I don’t know whether the offending literature or the text of McGovern's remarks is available yet – hopefully it will surface on Drudge – but it is startling to me that raising questions about Israel and Iraq is said to constitute "anti-Semitism." Like a lot of conservatives I support President Bush and his conduct of the war on terror, and I don’t subscribe to Tin Foil Hat Brigade conspiracy theories. But if we’re to have a worthwhile debate about what wars to fight, and how and when to do so, it’ll have to account for the U.S.' unique relationship with Israel and the extent to which our interests are co-extensive with theirs, and when they diverge. One of the vastly unexplored issues of the last few years is whether, as to Israel, we’re reaching a point of divergence, or are at or beyond it, as are sub-points such as: the idea that September 11th united much of the world against Islamofascim; questions about what Israel stands to gain from regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan; and why President Bush’s approval among American Jews isn’t higher. 9/11 conspiracy theories are one thing but these unexplored questions are quite another.
Jewish neo-conservatives’ indignation, and their willingness to affiliate paleo-conservatism with anti-Semitism (one example: this WSJ editorial) has thrown water on the debate. The tactic is as regrettable as when it’s used, for example, by liberal idiots who introduce the words “racism” and “bigot” into a debate over affirmative action. Such exaggeration and careless use of the terms eventually cheapen them, which is especially bothersome considering the frightful reemergence of actual anti-Semitism in Europe.
It remains to be seen whether the DNC’s troubles this weekend will fester or be whisked under the carpet. At this point, without knowing the contents of the literature that was circulated, it’s impossible to talk merits. But judging by the initial response we’ll never get that far – the script is being followed: righteous indignation, then summary dismissal – of an idea, precisely because it is “critical of Israel.” And no one dares ask why. This is a terrible path for public debate, one that bears no resemblance to “conservatism.” Where do the reliable conservative pundits stand? Why isn't anyone denouncing the speech policing?
For now it may be worth savoring a delicious irony here. Liberals tend to disclaim responsibility for speech codes, but who’s kidding whom? That some of them, as a result of yet another meandering tirade against President Bush, found themselves ensnared in their own rhetorical trap is beyond amusing, as is the spectacle of Howard Dean denouncing anything at all as “offensive.”
Posted by bill at 07:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 18, 2005
Non-Apology Apology
Vietnam vet Dave St. John offers some perspective on Gitmo and Dick Durbin, who has issued a lame "sorry if you're offended"/"up yours" "apology":
Mark my words, somewhere, a military planner or strategist for al Qaeda or whatever new group of thugs is emerging is watching this drama unfold. They are making careful notes and calculations regarding just how long it will take for the brave efforts of our military to be eclipsed by the rantings of these self-serving politicians. They know that the efforts of those who view war and the sacrifices those who wage it incur through some out-of-touch, intellectual prism, and use their right of free speech without regard for its consequences, will always provide them with a ray of hope that their twisted cause will prevail. So they labor on, committing atrocities, killing the innocent, claiming their rights have been violated when captured, deflecting and obfuscating the truth because they know they have found comrades firmly embedded in our government who by word and action will support them.
Meantime, John Hinderaker says Durbin's "is not much of an apology":
First, Durbin notes that more than 1,700 soldiers have been killed. This is a good reason to interrogate enemy combatants, hardly an argument to the contrary. But Durbin leads with it to create the illusion that this is somehow his concern. Next he says that his statement was "critical of the policies of this Administration." But saying that American soldiers are indistinguishable from Nazis and Communists isn't being "critical of the policies of this administration." This administration has not, in fact, condoned torture of detainees; as we have pointed out over and over, the administration's policies have been humane to a degree that is probably unprecedented in world history during wartime. When abuses have occurred, as at Abu Ghraib (which Durbin irrelevantly drags into his "apology"), they have been in clear violation of the administration's policies.
Finally, Durbin tells us that he has just now learned that comparing our soldiers to Nazis, Communists, and Pol Pot-type crazies "can be misused and misunderstood." Misused? What does that mean? B