I Triple Dog Dare You!

In a slight breach of etiquette, GWB skipped the triple dare and went right for the throat:

U.S. Rep. John "Randy" Kuhl, R-29th, doesn’t know if President George W. Bush has given him one of his infamous nicknames, but if he has, it might involve "lollipop."

Kuhl, who traveled with the president to the Rochester suburb of Greece Tuesday, said people generally try not to embarrass themselves in front of Bush. Unfortunately, Kuhl said he, along with congressmen Sherwood Boehlert, R-24th, and Thomas Reynolds, R-26th, couldn’t avoid it.

According to Kuhl, after lunch frozen raspberry fruit bars were served up. Kuhl, Boehlert and Reynolds all licked their treats, but the president bit into his.

"That’s when I realized it was very cold, too cold to lick, and my tongue was sticking to the lollipop," Kuhl said. "I don’t know if it was intentional to slow down the conversation, but here we were with the leader of the free world and all our tongues are stuck to lollipops."

"Holy cow, it’s the cops. Look, it’s the fire department" :)

Plugging myself over at The Jawa Report.

Read: I Triple Dog Dare You! »

Not a Filibuster?

From the dictionary:

As a noun:

  • The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
  • An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.

Despite making this deal on Tuesday, and saying they wouldn’t filibuster Bolton on Wednesday, the Dems did just that, starting with, who else, Boxer.

"We should delay this until we see that information; it’s a matter of right and wrong," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., maintained at the start of a second day of Senate debate over Bolton’s fitness and qualifications. "It is right for us to get that information, it is wrong for the administration to withhold it."

And that information, the names of people Bolton asked for from an NSA transcript, means what? Why must you have it? It will give you what information? If that information is released, the Dems will find something else to delay the vote over. We see that their deals are worth less then a $5 hooker. But it’s not about Bolton (snicker(:

"We want to make clear that this is not a filibuster. It is a vote to protect the Senate’s constitutional power to advise and consent to nominations," they(Sen’s Biden and Dodd) wrote.

Excuse me, but BS. Delay agrees:

"John Bolton, the very first issue we turned to, we got what looks to me like a filibuster," Frist said. "It certainly sounds like a filibuster … it quacks like a filibuster."

Yup. And, is there anyone else out there who thinks Voinovich might just be gone during his next election? Whiny little puke.

Read: Not a Filibuster? »

Teach’s Sith Review

I have said a few times that I wouldn’t write a review of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith till I saw it a second time. I just did that (and will probably go a 3rd time). I also saw it opening day, because, yes, I am that type of a geek. Let me start off with this comment I left over at Absinthe and Cookies (possible spoilers ahead):

Read More »

Read: Teach’s Sith Review »

On Newstands Now!

Image hosting by Photobucket Caught this story last night:

Detainees told FBI interrogators as early as April 2002 that mistreatment of the Koran was widespread at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and many said they were severely beaten by captors there or in Afghanistan, according to FBI documents released yesterday.

The summaries of FBI interviews, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of an ongoing lawsuit, include a dozen allegations that the Koran was kicked, thrown to the floor or withheld as punishment. One prisoner said in August 2002 that guards had “flushed a Koran in the toilet” and had beaten some detainees.

The Dems are all over this. Somehow, amazingly, they find the word of Islamic extremists who want to kill Americans more credible then that of American soldiers and citizens. Or, maybe not too amazing, considering their conduct. Take nutjobs such as Forsake the Troops. Kos excerpts, but forgets one thing (via Michelle Malkin:

One detainee disputed claims that guards had mistreated the Koran. The detainee said that riots resulted from claims that a guard dropped the Koran. In actuality, the detainee said, a detainee dropped the Koran then blamed a guard. (This detainee is apparently more skeptical of Koran-abuse allegations than the Washington Post, which neglected to mention this tidbit.)

Oops. Meanwhile, Charlie Manson says his living conditions are poor and the food is bland and tasteless.

Read: On Newstands Now! »

Stop the ACLU nutjobs Blogburst

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."-Voltaire

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers. The ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctnat to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

"With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union’s most devoted activist for abortion rights…..she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for "pro-choice" activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard."Twilight of Liberty

To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

"Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the excersize of First Ammendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real facists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had thier rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty

Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60’s, and even today in the "pro-choice" demonstrators. Every movement has it’s fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent. Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.

The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU’s record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty

It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, "Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics." The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissedents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women’s Center. The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in. The police used "come-a-long" holds, or "pain compliance holds", with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing. When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.

"Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?" commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can’t get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed ot the ise of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, "Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?" the Harvard Law professor replied, "Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, "Get us in right away, "thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union’s attitude: "Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit." "In other words," as John Leo puts it, "RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful."Twilight of Liberty,

It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and facists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additonal advantages and features that will be available for you there…you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Sites Already on Board:

Stop The ACLU Freedom Of Thought Mad Tech Respublica The Wide Awakes Angry Republican Mom Kender’s Musings American Patriots What Attitude Problem? Life Trek Gribbit’s Word Def Conservative An American Housewife A Tic In The Mind’s Eye Cao’s Blog Regular Ron Freedom Of Is This Life? Patriots For Bush California Conservative 4 Truth NIF Obiter Dictum PBS Watch Xtreme Right Wing Daily Inklings Miss Patriot Jack Lewis.net Conservative Dialysis Conservative Angst Kill Righty American Warmonger Birth Of A Neo-Con The Nose On Your Face The View From Firehouse Ogre’s View Fundamentally right Conservative Rant My Political Soap Box Common Sense Runs Wild Redstate Rant Time Hath Found Us American Dinosaur Merri Musings And Rightly So Sweet Spirits of Ammonia Smithereen’s Files Pulpit Pounder Ravings of J.C.B. Is It Just Me? Blogtalker Parrot Check Stuff You Should Know Rancher Blog Christmas Ghost Vista On Current Events Musing Minds Pirate’s Cove Mr . Minority The Lesser Of Two Evils RAGE The Life And Times

We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU’s radical agenda. Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker! Click Below To See Our Store!

Read: Stop the ACLU nutjobs Blogburst »

50K!

Finally hit the 50,000 mark, and the winner is: Julie with a B!

Who is much better then 49,999, who was looking for cannabilism.

Read: 50K! »

Is this wrong?

Ever since the issue of The Huffington Post (and, no, I will not link it) hotlinking photo’s was uncovered, I have been going over there and giving them a tip, berating them, etc, regarding that theft. Is that wrong? Cause it is so much fun, and they make it SO easy.

Read: Is this wrong? »

Conyers needs to read the Constitution

Via Little Green Footballs, through Basil’s Blog, we find that nutbag Rep. John Conyers wants to outlaw religious intolerance against Islam:

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both those supporting and opposing my actions. I continue to believe that given recent events, it is worthwhile for the Congress to actually express its support for the freedom of religion. The resolution was drafted to oppose all religious intolerance. To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion.

You can hit his "blog" if you want to read the rest. But, basically, "JC" forgot this little thing:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (I hope I do not have to mention which Amendment this is :D)

So, JC wants to pass a law respecting the establishment of religion. Perhaps this is a bit out of context, since he doesn’t want Islam to be the national religion (that is his next Bill), but it sure is making Islam official in the USA, isn’t it?

Furthermore, it establishes that people of other religions cannot exercise their ability to try and convert people from Islam to say, Christianity.

To continue on, this would violate the next line about abridging the freedom of speech. 3 for 3.

It is all nice and good that Conyers wants to protect peoples Rights. But people need to show that they deserve those Rights, and it seems to be that a minority of Muslims are showing the same tolerance and respect for other religions.

And, just for reference, were Conyers to submit the same Bill for Christianity, I would say the same things, except for that last line of the previous paragraph. This is not Governments place, as stated by the Constitution. Period.

Read: Conyers needs to read the Constitution »

Ssshhh, don’t tell the libazoids

You might ruin their day if you tell them this:

The number of millionaires in America reached record highs in 2004, hitting 7.5 million, according to a new survey.

That represented a gain of 21 percent, the largest jump in the number of U.S. millionaires since 1998, according to the survey by the Spectrem Group, a Chicago-based research firm.

Spectrem counted Americans with net assets of $1 million or more, excluding primary residences but including second homes and other real estate holdings. There were 6 million millionaires in 2001, when the bursting of the tech-stock bubble pruned more than a million Americans from this status.

Gee, and all along they thought that the economy sucked. Will their next spin be that this means more people to tax? Or, it could be that these millionares are making their money on the backs of the proletariat in a poor-to-the-rich asset transfer scheme. Probably WalMarts fault. And Bush’s. The data is misleading, or an outright lie.

Two things. One, the economy is chugging along very well. Two, I gotta stop reading the Loon sites.

Read: Ssshhh, don’t tell the libazoids »

May 6th Newsweak

Image hosting by Photobucket My little contribution to white TRASH wednesday

 

(posted over at Basil’s Breakfast and at the Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam)

Read: May 6th Newsweak »

Pirate's Cove