A Kangaroo Court In Spain: I’m Shocked

It was only a matter time before the fascist Left got their way. Many on the Left are nothing more than cowards that hide behind a justice system held captive to a mob mentality:

WSJ: Tale of Two Farces

Only in a country that considers bullfighting a fair fight (I believe the bull might take exception to that), would this type of action be considered a cause for truth and justice. Please………..

US Guns in Mexico: Why Let Those Darn Facts Get In The Way?

Throughout the week many within the anti-2^nd Amendment crowd pointed to the claims by President Obama that over “90%” of the guns used for illegal activities in Mexico came from the US. In fact these figures were just slightly exaggerated…ONLY BY 73%!

Fox News: Myth of Percent of Guns in Mexico a Fraction of Number Obama Claimed

I guess it was the thought that counts.

The World Should Be Applauding Israel’s Response Against Hamas

Hamas is up to its old tricks, and once again most of the world is calling on Israel to show restraint, or is looking to America to “intervene.” But what many in the world are forgetting is that Israel is not the aggressor, and it is simple defending itself against an enemy so vile that it would hide like cowards amongst women and children. Israel has stated that this battle will be to the “bitter end,” with the ultimate goal being the destruction of Hamas. Good riddance.

Hamas is not a group of freedom fighters. Hamas is a terror-based organization whose objective is two-fold: the total destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic republic. We are not dealing here with objections by Israel or the West; we are dealing with the fundamental approach and biased declarations of Hamas leaders.

Many news reports are depressingly familiar in that simple facts are twisted, holding Israel responsible for all of the ills of the Middle East while declining to hold Palestinians accountable for their own decisions, which consequential have lead to many of their misfortunes.

Washington Times: Israel Postures to Reshape "Truce"

Zionist Mass Murder: Break the Siege, Defend Gaza!

Reuters: Iran sets up court to try Israelis over Gaza

The Palestine’s have chosen terrorist as their leaders, and have willing accepted an evil alliance with Iran. America’s support of Israel is based on the fact that both Israel and the United States are freely elected democracies, both are fighting for human rights and both are fighting terrorism. The world would be a far better place if Hamas was wiped from the map, which in turn would help to diminish Iran's influence in region.

Pope Attacked As Homophobic…Again

In the age of “victimization” it takes very little to set off the extremist of the world. Whether it is Muslims over a teddy bear named Mohammad, or gay activist participating in violent criminal activities after losing Proposition 8, some people love to play the role of “victim.” Take the case of the Popes most recent speech.

Pope Benedict was accused of “stoking homophobia” after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. The Pontiff made the remarks in an end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. He said that humanity needed to listen to the “language of creation” to understand the intended roles of man and woman and behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a “destruction of God’s work”.

“The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less," Benedict told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's Clementine Hall.

"What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.”

Fox News: Pope Is Homophobic

One does not have to be Catholic to respect the Pope or embrace the message he is trying to convey. But to imply that the Pope is homophobic is just another example of a “boy crying wolf.” In this modern age, you are considered intolerant merely for speaking out against a lifestyle you feel is harmful. There was no “hate” in the Popes speech, yet the response by many “gay activist” are filled with all manner of hate speech for both the Pope and Catholics:

Pink News: one the most viciously homophobic world leaders on a par with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Robert Mugabe
Democratic Underground: NO SEX WITH WOMEN? WEARS DRESSES? PROTECTS PEDOPHILES? .... it's POPEMAN.. what a GAY hat !!!!
Boxer Rebellion: F**K YOU POPE BENEDICT!!!!!!!

There is a lot more hate where those came from. One only needs to do a blog search using the words “Pope” and “homophobic.” For an added measure, you can include any combination of obscene words, along with “hate,” “bigot,” or just use your imitation, and ta-da, or sorts of vile comments are returned.

In an effort to expose a “perceived hatred,” some gay activists have managed to expose their own prejudices and loathing. To compare the Pope to pure evil such as Ahmadinejad or Mugabe, is nothing more than example of how disconnected from reality some people are. You do not have to agree with the teachings of any religion, but you should stay away from the “theatrics of victimization” if you want to be taken seriously.

Powell Endorses Obama: Liberals Spontaneously Explode

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced his endorsement of Barrack Obama, which resulted in the spontaneously explosion of millions of those on the far Left.

General Powell is not a Conservative, and he hinted of his support for Obama throughout this election (Huffington Post: Novak-Powell Will Endorse Obama, New York Times: Powell Praises Obama ). I respect General Powell, but I known that he is wrong on this one. But what is more interesting is what the response by those on the Left will be. For years, Powell was reviled by those on the Left, often called a stooge, a liar, Uncle Tom, and worst of all, a traitor:

Daily Kos

Papillion’s Art Palace

Village Voice: The Uncle Tom Dilemma

Michelle Malkin: Exposing the Uncle Tom Outreach Initiative

The Hollywood Liberal

When Obama announced Colin Powell support at a rally on October 19, 2008, the audience applauded. I couldn’t help but wonder how many in the crowd were the same ones who maligned Secretary Powell when he worked for President Bush? Is the Left willing to “forgive” Powell now that he has endorsed their candidate, or admit that they were wrong? And what would those of the Left be saying about Powell had he surprised everyone and endorsed McCain?

How do you spell hypocrite? L-I-B-E-R-A-L

I Scream, You Scream We All Scream For Breast Milk Ice Cream

Recently PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) suggested in a letter to ice cream manufactures Ben & Jerry’s that they should consider using human breast milk in their ice cream:

"If Ben & Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers—and cows—would reap the benefits," a PETA spokeswoman said in a letter to co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield……. "

Ben & Jerry’s politely declined the “offer:” We believe a mother's milk is best used for her child," the company said.”

Of course this story has received much attention, and a great many chuckles, as well as a few ice cream flavor suggestions (such as 'Thanks for the Mammaries"). One of the more interesting stories came from Ian Robinson, of the Calgary Sun:

Gimme two scoops of Pamela Anderson
By IAN ROBINSON

The following is a list of food that I have cheerfully eaten:

Goat head, calf face, dolphin, snails (both as escargot and caught in swamps and just thrown into the stewpot), roadkill dog, moose, muskrat, rabbit, squirrel, raw steak with a raw egg on top, chipmunk, deer, lung, heart, liver, kidney, baby cow, baby sheep, haggis, frog's legs (after catching and killing said frogs myself with a fishing line with a piece of red cloth as a lure stuck on a fishing hook -- and learned the hard way that when you fry up fresh frog's legs in a skillet over an open fire, that the frog's legs jump out of the pan and into the fire), duck, goose, pigeon, chicken's feet, blood pudding, cow brains, intestines, fish eggs and tongue.

I have also eaten Hamburger Helper concocted by an unskilled nine-year-old.
I have never, but would be willing to consume, a dead, frozen Uruguayan soccer player if I was stranded long enough in the Andes.

But there is something I will not eat under any circumstances, and it is this: Ice cream manufactured from the breast milk of a lactating woman.
Until this week, I never thought I would ever have to make such an assertion.
Never underestimate the capacity of various environmentally conscious whackjobs to pervert the process of the public discourse.

Last week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals called on the most successful hippie business in the world, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, to substitute human breast milk for cow's milk in their product.
Let's just sit here and wince at the implications of that neo-Freudian nightmare, shall we?

Their call came on the heels of news reports a Swiss restaurant owner will try to swap breast milk for cow's milk in the food he serves.
(Note to self: No more Swiss chocolate.)

PETA is forgetting not every woman is as equipped for the task of industrial-level lactation as their most famous spokesperson, Pamela Anderson.
While most of us read about PETA's latest foray into public relations and chuckle, it's important to realize PETA, like other groups of lunatics such as Greenpeace and the NDP, are in it for the long haul.

PETA realizes if it just keeps chipping away at public opinion, people may find themselves, if not agreeing with PETA's ultimate aim -- to turn us all into vegans without pets or cool leather jackets -- with some parts of their platform.
It's the death of 1,000 cuts and it wears us down.

The evidence of that is in the statement issued by Ben & Jerry's.
"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child."

The appropriate response would have been: "Get out of my office or I will hit you between the eyes with a sledgehammer, you *%$*@! morons."
We're so politically correct that a corporate flack has to first applaud PETA's creativity before gently suggesting the proper use of breast milk.

PETA's "creativity" has previously extended to comparing the beheading of a man on a Greyhound bus to the treatment of farm animals.
Not to mention the group's "Holocaust on your Plate" travelling exhibit, which put photos of concentration camp victims next to pictures of animals in our food chain process.

Just because PETA has learned that weird works better than confrontational, doesn't mean they're any less stupid, thoughtless, and evil.
If you forget that, don't blame me if some day you find yourself ordering a double-decker cone of Nipple Ripple or California Cleavage.

The Media Coverage Of Governor Palin: Shame In Black And White

There is no doubt that Sarah Palin and her family are strong enough to weather the media storm that they have sailed into. A person’s life is a reflection of their character, and by all accounts the Palin’s are a strong and devoted family. The media scrutiny will only serve to reaffirm that Governor Palin possess the moral fiber that is needed in Washington, DC, but only if the coverage is fair and truthful.

It is unfortunate that there are those in the media and the blogsphere thhat are either choosing to belittle Governor Palin’s accomplishments or personally attacking the Palin Family. Here are just a few examples:

First up is Margarat Carlson:

Ms. Carlson is a reporter for Time magazine, and can often be seen on television offering political commentary. Ms. Carlson recently wrote a piece for Bloomberg on-line:

Bloomberg: Governor "just" an honorary head of the National Guard

“Every governor is honorary head of their state's National Guard.” A State Governor is not like the Queen of England! Ms. Carlson needs to review the US Constitution and most State Constitutions. Each governor is the Civilian Commander-in- Chief of their reprehensive National Guard units, until either the President of the United States or the regional Commander activates such unit. A Governor can activate the National Guard to help in disaster relief or to provide security for the citizens of their State. Honorary……..hardly! Could it be that Ms. Carlson is trying to “downplay” Governor Palin’s experience?

Daily Kos:

Meanwhile, the fine folks over at the Daily Kos decided to just make up the news, allowing rumors and vicious postings on their “website.” There are a lot of disturbed people out there, and it would seem they all write for the Daily Kos. Is it any wonder hardly anybody wants to run for public office?

From the world of academia:

Next, NECN interviewed Law Professor Elizabeth Sherman George Washington University, regarding the impact of Bristol Palin’s “choice”:




“This reaffirms Roe Vs. Wade.” Huh? Bristol Palin gets pregnant. Bristol does the responsible thing and confers with her parents. The Palin’s do not look upon the baby as a “choice,” but commit to the safe delivery and loving upbringing of the baby. The Palin’s are forced to issue a press release on the matter (in large part due to the bloodthirsty mentality of the media), with those on the Left immediately attack them. This is what passes for “reaffirm” in the eyes of Professor Sherman.

In the real world of the Left, reaffirming Roe Vs. Wade would look like this:

Girl gets pregnant. She lies to her family and hides the pregnancy from her them. She sneaks off with her boyfriend to seek an abortion. With limited counseling, with no input from the girl’s physician, and without the knowledge of the parents, an abortion is performed. Baby is killed. The girl almost immediately starts to suffer from guilt and depression because the propaganda of abortion does not stand up to the reality of abortion. The girl starts to experience intimacy issues and contemplates suicide. The boyfriend abandons the girl (if he was still with her), further alienating her. That Ms. Sherman is what the reaffirming of Roe Vs. Wade looks like!

And as far as the NECN report, why were Ms. Sherman’s comments even considered relevant to the story, other than to provide the non-existent “Roe Vs. Wade” connection. NECN’s story was just another example of a detached media.

These are just a few “shining” examples of what is passing for educated thought and profound commentary. There are more examples of media bias, sexism, and hypocrisy on the two links below. The level to which some would stoop to in an effort to falsely smear an incredible person such as Governor Palin, is sickening.

Fight The Palin Smears
Palin Sexism Watch

Father Spanks 20-Year Old Daughter Over A Phone Bill

When is a child too old to spank? Or is corporal punishment less about age, and more about the infraction?

Recently a prominent lawyer in Portland, Maine was arrested and charged with “spanking” his 20-year old daughter. And what was the transgression that enraged the father? Try a $5000 phone bill:

Corporal Punishment for a $5,000 phone bill

A parent should be permitted to determine the proper punishment for their child, as long as it is within reason. But this “child” is 20-years old! She is 20-years old, living in his house, and apparently he is still paying her cell-phone bill. Gee, no red-flags there!

I am glad the charges were dropped. Now I only hope the father has the fortitude to let his daughter “find her place in the world.” Translation: Boot her butt out the door, find a job, and see how hard a person has to work to pay for a $5000 phone bill. Spoiled Brat!

Senator Ted Stevens: The King Of Pork Indicted

Republican Senator Ted Stevens, the finical architect of the “Bridge to nowhere,” has been indicted for corruption by the US Justice Department:

AP: Alaskan Senator Indicted

Just another example of corrupted power, and more fodder for Democrats (and rightly so). But is this just an indictment of one person, or really a condemnation of the practice of “pork barrel spending?”

House Committee To Talk Bush Impeachment

The House Judicial Committee will “officially hear” testimony regarding what some are calling potentially impeachable offenses on the part of President Bush’s administration. The hearing, which is titled "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," followed a vote that sent Representative Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the panel.

The hearing isn't explicitly about impeachment, and House members have been warned by Pelosi to temper impeachment talks; but rest assured a few House members, along with witnesses, will openly “express interest” in the possibility of impeachment.

It’s Summer time, and people are bored, so maybe we should just go forward and have an impeachment trial. It has been 10-years since the last one, so it might be a nice distraction from the high gas prices, the record foreclosures, and the growing nuclear threat in Iran. Yeah, I think “We The People…” could use some entertainment.

I decided that the best news report I could use to illustrate the recklessness of this action was from the Iranian “sponsored” news agency:

From Iran: George Bush is a war criminal

Who Can Use The Word Nigger?

Please Be Advised – This posting contains frank, and too many, offensive language.

The recent “hot mic” video, featuring Jesse Jackson uttering the word nigger, and the on-air discussion at “The View,” where Whoopi and Sherri Shepard tried to justify the words use, has a lot of people talking once again about the exploitation of the word. It is a conversation that is confusing and scary to many people, and is divided along racial lines.

I purposely did not use the “N-word” reference, which is often bandied about when people try to have a discussion regarding the word nigger. The "N-word" reference plays right into the debate of who can use the word nigger? Is it that no one can use the word, everyone can use the word, or just certain people can use the word? Contrary to the current argument (which is just an extension of the same old argument) words are not owned by any one person, or collection of people. The meaning of a word is determined by what the majority of society commonly assigns to that word. The word nigger has been rightly classified as one of those words that are so filled with hatred it does not belong in everyday language. That is not to say it shouldn’t be spoken, but it should only be used in a setting that respects the words negative connotation.

I detest the word nigger, like I despise most obscene language. But the word nigger is much more offensive, regardless of who is using it. The word nigger is so deeply rooted in human depravity and societal oppression it should only be used in the context of a historical understanding. The word nigger is directly connected to one of America’s greatest failures, slavery. The word nigger was meant to move an entire class of people to the category of “sub-human,” and regardless of how some people try to spin it, the word will always represent the subjugation of African-Americans. By believing that you can use the word to mean something different DOES NOT remove its roots in an evil institution, an institution which violates every principal that natural law stands for.

How ignorant is it for us to debate the vileness that the word nigger communicates? I place the word nigger right up there with cunt. Imaging if it became common place for women to refer to each other as cunts, but in their context, the significance was meant as a friendly greeting between women. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? But then add a rule that ONLY women can use the word cunt, and that if anyone else (meaning: non-woman) dared to use the word, it would be deemed offensive. Sounds even more ridiculous. Both words are hateful, and are meant to humiliate and cause pain. So why would we want these words to remain a part of our everyday language? The answer is simple, we wouldn’t.

We are doomed as a culture if we decide that it is alright to segregate language, but then expect equality everywhere else. If an entire segment of our society chooses to use the word nigger, then demands that the word has a different meaning when used by others, then it is an affirmation to the obscenity of the word. Try as you might, you will NEVER be able to separate the cruel history of the term nigger by trying to apply your own definition to the word. You will only allow the word to live on beyond its tainted uselessness.

The path to the orgin of the word nigger is simple to trace. The word nigger starts with a group of people being stolen from their homeland and shipped to a foreign land. The word nigger was used as those very same people where paraded around and sold like livestock. The word nigger was used when families were separated for the sake of an evil commerce. The word nigger was used while the slaves were whipped, beaten, raped and maimed because they were deemed as nothing more than a “piece of property. “ The word nigger was used to keep an entire race “in their place” after their “emancipation.” That is the history of the “N-word.” Not the Black history, not the White history, but the true history. No good can come from trying to attach a different meaning to the word. The word nigger is an ugly scab on America, and each time the word nigger is used we reopen that wound.

The New Yorker Cover: What Exactly Is The Problem?

What the New Yorker Magazine did with their over the top Obama magazine cover (July 2008) was outrageous, but it achieved exactly what it was meant to do. A picture is worth a thousand words, or in this case millions of words (not to mention dollars), and man did this picture hit a hornets nest.

The Obama cartoon cover stirred up controversy, there-by providing oodles of free press, which in turn attracted readers (customers). Money is why the New Yorker exist, and with this issue they made a lot of it. But what about the content and message of the Obama article?

The New Yorker was trying to illustrate the “myths and rumors” that some on the Left feel “many Americans” have surrounding the Obama’s. Yet isn’t ironic that any expressed belief that these myths and rumors regarding Obama are held by a majority of non-Obama supporters (in particular Conservatives) are not only false, but really only reside in the imagination of liberals, as the New Yorker cover demonstrate so elegantly.

Now I am not saying that there aren’t people out there that don’t believe these rumors about Obama, but their numbers are so insignificant their not worth our attention. The New Yorker was trying to exaggerate a fallacy that perpetuates a real myth, that white America is really racist if you dig hard enough. But the controversies surrounding the New Yorker Magazine rest solely with Liberals.

Even funnier are the follow-up editorials and news reports (as collected by the LA Times…..consider the source):

Over at Top of the Ticket, Andrew Malcolm explains why the cover could be dangerous:

A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't the New Yorker's fault.

A problem is there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone gets the ha-ha-we've-collected-almost-every-cliched-rumor-about-Obama-in-one-place-in-order-to-make-fun-of-them punchline.

At Pandagon, Jesse Taylor agrees that the cover doesn't work as satire, particularly because it has to be explained:

It’s not actually satirizing the phenomenon of right-wing e-mail forwards, it’s just creating the ultimate version thereof. To put it in a different context, it’s like holding a satirized Klan rally by holding a Klan rally...with a laser show that makes a three-story image of a burning cross. A bigger, badder, better version of the thing you’re attempting to mock doesn’t constitute mockery, it just constitutes a gaudier version of the thing you’re addressing.

The Plank also thinks it doesn't work, because of the magazine's elitist posture:

And that, of course, is precisely what's wrong with the cover: the image is satirical only because it appears on the cover of the New Yorker, which, we all know, is a right-thinking magazine read by right-thinking people who couldn't possibly be among the 10 percent of Americans who believe Obama's a Muslim. The New Yorker"Stop Snitching"National Review, or that t-shirt on a black person in a crime-infested neighborhood, and the message takes on a very different meaning. assumes everyone knows it's being ironic with its cover, sort of the way the white hipster in a gentrifying neighborhood assumes everyone knows he's being ironic when he wears a t-shirt. But put that image on the cover of

Times columnist Jonah Goldberg chimes in at The Corner:

What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review. Roman Genn could do wonders with that concept. Of course, if we ran the exact same art, the consensus from the liberal establishment could be summarized in words like "Swiftboating!" and, duh, "racist."

Michelle Obama Watch too wonders about liberal racism:

Does anybody remember that loon from Daily Kos that thought it was a good idea to show Michelle Obama being lynched and tortured because he had a really good point to make?

Michelle Malkin is most concise in her take, and tells Obama to "grow a pair." Althouse, on that note, wonders why everyone is talking about nuts.

Salon's War Room blog, like Althouse, makes it past the cover:

In this case, though, there's a tangential relationship, as the magazine's Ryan Lizza has a really interesting profile of Obama, done by looking through the lens of his rise in Chicago. In fact, if I were Lizza, I'd be pretty upset at my editors today, as this controversy has ensured that his article is going ignored. Like so many articles in the magazine, it's long, complicated and detailed, and reporters and commentators who are discussing the cover are skipping over the article, presumably for reasons of time.... Lizza's article isn't a hit piece, but it paints a complicated and at times unflattering portrait of Obama, one that would have had some potential to be politically damaging to the presumptive Democratic nominee were it not for the attention the cover's getting instead.

See New Yorker editor David Remnick's defense here, the cartoonist's response here, and the article here.

The satire feel flat on its face (as an attempted “case in point” to a false problem), and only helped to create more insignificant banter amongst an already non-responsive media. The New Yorker article was not flattering of Obama, but the cover allows for the media to walk pass that little ditty, and create a dust storm about nothing. But I love how some Progressives have tried to lay the blame for this mess with non-Obama supporters. Hate to burst your bubble, but this one rest squarely with the New Yorker, the ADD media, and Progressive trying to divert attention away from the candidate.

Is America A Nation Of Whiners'?

McCain Economic Adviser Calls US 'A Nation of Whiners'

Maybe former Senator Phil Gramm could have put it a little better than just calling Americans “whiners” outright. What Gramm should have said is that “some” Americans (strongly accentuated by the media) are “whiners,” which would have been a true statement:

Gramm: America A Nation Of Whiners

Sometimes the truth hurts, and to what Gramm was trying to convey, many American’s agree with him. Don’t believe me? Read the comments attached to the Washington Post story. The remarks are far more direct, but no less true. Better yet, just listen to the whining going on within the media about Gramm’s comments.
I found it interesting the difference on how the media covered this story and Barrack Obama’s Father’s Day speech a few weeks ago (Obama's Father's Day Speech). Gramm called us whiners, while Obama used language that laid the blamed for the breakdown of the family unit squarely with fathers, and only fathers. Really, no one else is to blame? Not the anti-father court system or family service organizations that keep fathers away from their kids? Not the entitlement programs that award poor life choices? Nope, it is all the fathers fault. Obama’s Father’s Day speech was filled with the same old male-bashing rhetoric that was responsible for driving a wedge between the father and his family in the first place. Society has devalued the father’s role in the family so much, how anyone could be surprised at the current state of family is beyond me.

But people are upset because Phil Gramm dared to say out loud what many of us believe, numerous American’s are cry-babies, choosing to believe the negativity that permeates the media, and live by the motto “ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for.” Gramm calls us “whiners,” while Obama tells fathers to stop acting like “boys,” and Gramm is the one criticized.

To Gramm’s point, and the opinion of many other economic experts, the economy is not nearly as bad as the media is playing it out to be. But if you yell recession often enough and loud enough, people start believing it. We should worry less about the language Gramm used, and focus more on the truth of his message.

It’s Official: The 110th Congress Sucks!

The reality is that for the past year the approval rating of the Congress has been lower than that of President Bush; yet all the media wants to focus on is President Bush’s numbers. Now for the first time in our country’s history, Congresses approval rating has slipped into single digits:

Rasmussen: Congressional performance at an all time low

This Congress has been an absolute failure, yet all you hear from the media is that the “Democratic Party” is primed for a major victory in November. Why!!!!!!????

And how do the Democrats respond, blame the Republicans of course. The Democratic Party is asking that we vote more of them into office, and that we elect Senator Barrack Obama as President.

Putting the Democrats in charge of the Executive and Legislative Branches will be like trying to control a seventeen-year old boy in the backseat of a car on prom night. There will be hands everywhere, and saying “no” won’t stop them!

Iran “Test Fires” A Missile Capable Of Reaching US Targets

From the BBC:

Iran missile test 'provocative'

And what was Obama’s response, “stronger sanctions:”

Obama, McCain split on Iran's missile tests

Obama - “Iran must suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior."

Congressman William Delahunt: Smile, al Qaeda Is Watching!

David Addington, the Chief of Staff for the Vice-President, along with John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who drafted many of the legal memos defending the aggressive integration techniques, recently testified before Congress.

During the course of the hearing, liberal Congressman William Delahunt (People’s Socialist State of Massachusetts) asked Mr. Addington about water boarding. Mr. Addington responded that he would not go into details because Al Qaeda is probably watching. This did not sit too well with Congressman Delahunt.

Congressman Delahunt responded with – “"I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you." Delahunt later stated that his statement was taken out of context. But what he claims he meant was "I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you." Al Qaeda now knows the face of one of the men who relentlessly pursues its henchmen and deals with their interrogations.

Delahunt’s statements were outrageous, and a clear example of the hostility coming from many liberals. Delahunt owes Addington and apology, and the Congressional leadership should consider censuring Delahunt.

To Addington’s credit, he did manage to put the committee on notice with the following statement - "No American should think we're free, the war is over, al-Qaida is not coming and they're not interested in getting us," Addington said, "Because that's wrong." It is doubtful that liberals were listening, or care.

Democrats Have Free Reign

Free Speech Under Attack In Canada

Canada and the United States share more than a border. There is a kinship and lineage that dates back to when Western Europeans were settling North America. In fact some of my relatives made their way from Scotland to Nova Scotia, and eventually to the United States. The area in which I live in now, Rochester, New Hampshire has a rich French-Canadian history. But for all of our similarities, there are times when our distinct differences are obvious. Point in case, Mark Steyn

For those that do not know Mark Steyn, he is an extraordinary author, whose honest writings are as witty as they are insightful. But more importantly Mr. Steyn is a true Conservative, and that seems to bother some people.

Mr. Steyn has found himself in a bit of “legal” problem in Canada for an article that he wrote for MacLean’s magazine (which was an extract from Mark Steyn’s brilliant book “America Alone”). Mr. Steyn is unapologetic of his observations of radical Islam, nor should he be, because every word written in the original article (as well as his other pieces) is true. But as with the United States, there are those on the Left that would prefer to silence the voices of reason instead of confronting the truth of the words. Mark Steyn is their latest target.

The Canadian Islamic Council filed a grievance with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal a three-person committee comprised of lawyers. The Canadian Islamic Council received support from Canadian Arab Federation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Associations, and the Canadian Association of Journalists. Progressive groups have used the Tribunal to try and silence all manner of free speech merely on the grounds that they disagree with it. For you see, the Left often feels that if they strongly disagree with another person’s opinion, it must be offensive, and that in itself merits censorship. But of course that same principal cannot be directed at those on the Left.

It is hard to believe that a country that would allow the release of a movie about the assassination of President Bush would have a problem with any speech. But hypocrisy is a trademark characteristic of those on the Left.

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. The only thing at stake is the exchange of honest ideas, which doesn't seem to fit into this Politically Correct world that we have allowed ourselves to be painted into.

Good Luck Mark, and (dare I say it) God Bless!

Wanted: Child Molesters Seeking The Best Defense

What do you get when 90% of your elected representatives are Democrat? The answer is a State Representative like James Fagen and statements such as these:

Mr. Fagen made these outrageous remarks while defending why the State of Massachusetts SHOULD NOT pass Jessica’s Law. As it just so happens, Representative James Fagen also happens to be ….are ready….a defense attorney! Big surprise.

Mr. Fagen is just another example of why people are fleeing his State, and flooding into New Hampshire.

Boston Herald: Father Of Slain Child Outraged By Comments

Imus Vs. Pacman

The bad boy of talk-formatted radio, Don Imus, is in hot water again. This time over statements he made about troubled athlete Adam “Pacman” Jones.

AP: Imus Explains Pacman Remarks

Imus claims he was directing his sarcasm at the fact the police arrested Pacman Jones six separate times, inferring that the police were “picking on” Jones (not sure if I buy that one, but it is possible). I am not a fan of Don Imus, and we all know his history and tendency to say outrageous things; that is what he gets paid for. But the thing that is more outrageous was the sanctimonious statement made by Pacman:

USA Today: Mr. Imus has problems with African-Americans

Pacman “will pray for” Imus…perfect. Jones has led a “thug” life off of the football field. Shootings, assaults, obstruction of justice, and public intoxication are just a few things contained within Pacman’s resume. Forgetting all of the second chances he has been granted in his life, Pacman wants to see Imus punished. What a hypocrite!

And if Imus was truly expressing discontent with the police, it will serve to help vindicating him as a bigot, only to reveal him to be an idiot.

Iran to EU: Stick Your Carrots Where The Sun Don’t Shine

Representatives for Iran did not mix words while discussing the recent EU (European Union) reaction to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The EU’s expansion of additional sanctions is in response to companies, such as the Bank Melli, for providing financial backing to companies involved in procuring goods for Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in a statement that the "carrot and stick policy" by the EU won't stop Iran's "pursuit to realize its nuclear rights." Referring to the new sanctions as a "narrow-mindedness decision" by the EU, Hosseini was quoted as saying that "it will not help create a suitable atmosphere for a diplomatic solution" to the nuclear dispute. That sounds inviting.

Not to be outdone, fan favorite and all-around megalomaniac, President Ahmadinejad was quoted by the state IRNA news agency as saying that "a court should be formed to try and punish all world criminals who invade the rights of the Iranian nation."

The world sits by as Iran inches closer and closer to nuclear weapons. We all better pray that Israel does take action, because the EU and the United States “action of inaction” is empowering Iran to do as it pleases.

BBC Reports: New EU Sanctions