I love it when Liberals talk dirty to me

Yup, this is what still, post-Tucson, passes for “civility” from the left. I don’t even have to say “I hope they keep it up so that they will continue to expose themselves as hypocrites.” That would be a logical tautology.

Also, below are a bunch of great links from Michelle Malkin today.

Beyond race: The real “No Labels” movement

What’s to Blame for the Crisis in Egypt? You Guessed it: Global Warming

Unconstitutional: Florida judge strikes down Obamacare mandate; full decision embedded; all 47 GOP Senators sign on to DeMint repeal bill; White House reax: ruling is “odd,” “overreaching” “activism;” DOJ readies appeal

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Conducts Gun Sting in Neighboring… Arizona

About That School Obama Highlighted in the State of the Union…

Hollywood Enviro-Hypocrite of the Week – True story…my college room mate used to live near Redford’s digs in Utah. My roomie used to ride his four wheeler onto Redford’s property just to tick him off. Redford was the ultimate “Get off my lawn!” liberal then as he is now.

Related articles


The Violent Hypocrisy of the Left

Every time someone uses violence against individuals to make a political statement, it is wrong. When the Left does it, however, all is quickly forgiven and inevitably blamed on the Right.

Michelle Malkin has put together an encyclopedic list of violent hate crimes and hate speech performed by leftists, many of which were ignored by our intrepid media outlets, and the rest of which were blamed on the Right.

As Screwtape advised young Wormwood:

Your patient must demand that all his own utterances are to be taken at their face value and judged simply on the actual words, while at the same time judging all [others’] utterances with the fullest and most oversensitive interpretation of the tone and context of the suspected intention.

Yeah, the Right has had its whackjobs. I’m not denying that. But the next time your leftist friends, family, and co-workers try to pin all violent political acts on the Right, send them this list and remind them where the majority of violence and hatred is truly coming from.

(Warning: Many of those links and embedded images are NSFW.)

Related articles

WikiLeaks could be our friend…if it focuses correctly

After reading this article, I’ve got a slightly more sympathetic perspective on Julian Assange of WikiLeaks than before. He’s not just some dope-smoking hacker sitting in his mom’s basement spilling out confidential stuff online. He’s actually a highly educated family man with a plan. Setting aside the idea that it will likely get him and/or his loved ones murdered, there is a point he is trying to make about conspiracy that I can’t say I don’t respect, at least in part, especially now that conspiracy theory, in many cases, has become conspiracy reality to those of us who actually turn on our brains in the morning.

My point is, if Assange would focus his efforts on shining sunlight on the elites on both the right and the left, but leave our armed forces men and women out of the equation as much as possible (I know, there has to be a balance, but still…), then I’d more than likely be cheering him on.

Here’s hoping he starts digging around in the public records of a certain prominent former resident of a U.S. island state.

What Pelosi and Obama don’t understand about the Ground Zero Mosque

President Obama has cast his “vote” against the American people’s objections to a mega-mosque being built a short walking distance from the site of the World Trade Center destruction.

But that was before he “voted” against it.

Which was before he “voted” for it…again.

(Will someone just let the man eat his waffle?)

Nancy Pelosi is also now on record as saying she favors an investigation, not into the funding sources for the mosque (which no doubt would be eye-opening, if it could ever be discovered for real), but into the funding sources for those opposing the mosque (most likely, regular citizens like you and me).

Nancy Pelosi and Obama are not just showing how out of touch they are with American sentiment about 9/11.  They are being blatantly disingenuous in their insistence that the Ground Zero Mosque is about religious freedom and magnanimity in the American ideal of First Amendment protection.

Islamofascism, which has all but overtaken any leftover pretenses of “peaceful religion” in the Islamic world, is a political system structured to take away religious freedom. I’m not going to go into detail here because you’d indeed have to have been living under a rock to not know this by now. If you don’t know this, go watch the 9/11 tapes again. And the USS Cole bombing tapes, and the tapes and coverage of virtually everything ever said and done by those claiming responsibility for terrorism in the aftermath.

As one more nail in the coffin of “multi-culturalism” and “pluralism” doublespeak, read this report which outlines and demonstrates through undeniable, hard evidence the true agenda of the global Caliphate being constructed right on our own soil, memorial by memorial. Below is an excerpt (emphasis added):

On December 3, 2004, Ahmed, an Arab exchange student, walks down a palm-lined boulevard in a working class neighborhood of Los Angeles. Since it is Friday, he bypasses the Hispanic restaurants, the 7/11, and the sporting goods store, and enters the King Fahd mosque – an elegant building of white marble etched with gold, adorned by a blue minaret, that is named after its benefactor, the King of Saudi Arabia. Later he will join 500 other California Muslims in prayer but, because it is early, he visits the mosque library where he picks up several books on religious guidance, written in Arabic, that are offered free to Muslims like him, newly arrived and uncertain on how to fit into this modern, diverse land.

The tracts he opens are in the voice of a senior religious authority. They tell him that America, his adoptive home, is the “Abode of the Infidel,” the Christian and the Jew. He reads:

“Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

The advice is emphatic: “There is consensus on this matter, that whoever helps unbelievers against Muslims, regardless of what type of support he lends to them, he is an unbeliever himself.”

As he reads this warning, Ahmed thinks back to the U.S. government’s request to the American Muslim community for their voluntary cooperation in the fight against terrorism and he is afraid. He knows that the tracts’ author views such officials as “unbelievers,” so that, if he helped them, he would be an unbeliever himself, a renegade, an apostate from Islam who should therefore be put to death. He begins to worry too about his cousin, an American citizen who recently enlisted in the U.S. military.

The books give him detailed instructions on how to build a “wall of resentment” between himself and the infidel: Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never befriend an infidel unless it is to convert him. Never imitate the infidel. Never work for an infidel. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel.

Ahmed looks carefully at the book’s cover. It says “Greetings from the Cultural Department” of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, D.C. The book is published by the government of Saudi Arabia. The other books are textbooks from the Saudi Education Ministry, and collections of fatwas, religious edicts, issued by the government’s religious office, published by other organizations based in Riyadh.

In another book he reads that, if relations between Muslims and non-Muslims were harmonious, there would be “no loyalty and enmity, no more jihad and fighting to raise Allah’s work on earth.”

Ahmed’s experience is repeated, not only in Saudi Arabia and the notorious madrassas of Pakistan, but throughout America: the texts he read have been spread from coast to coast and now fill the libraries and study halls of some of America’s main mosques. To be sure, not all the books in such mosques espouse extremism and not all extremist works are Saudi. Saudi Arabia, however, is overwhelmingly the state most responsible for the publications on the ideology of hate in America.

The Center for Religious Freedom has gathered samples of over 200 such texts over the last twelve months — all from American mosques and all spread, sponsored or otherwise generated by Saudi Arabia. They demonstrate the ongoing indoctrination of Muslims in the United States in the hostility and belligerence of Saudi Arabia’s hardline Wahhabi sect of Islam.

All Saudis must be Muslim, and the Saudi government, in collaboration with the country’s religious establishment, enforces and imposes Wahhabism as the official state doctrine.  In 2004, the United States State Department designated Saudi Arabia as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act after finding for many years that “religious freedom did not exist” in the Kingdom. The Saudi policy of denying religious freedom is explained in one of the tracts in this study: “Freedom of thinking requires permitting the denial of faith and attacking what is sacred, glorifying falsehood and defending the heretics, finding fault in religion and letting loose the ideas and pens to write of disbelief as one likes, and to put ornaments on sin as one likes.”

Americans Stand Up Against Radical Islam in New York – We Will Not Submit!

Editor’s Note: I do not know to whom to attribute this as it came to me via email. I’m quoting it verbatim. If you are the author/photographer, reply in the comments so I may credit you and/or link to the original source.

UPDATE: The original source is El Marco. Many more pictures and commentary, plus this video of the participants, so-called “racist teabaggers” by Salon.com (must see) are presented there. Thank you, El Marco!

UPDATE 2: Islamic crescent-shaped memorial for Flight 93 victims?

Did you hear about this?

What our liberal media doesn’t tell us!

Not one major network sent a satellite truck or camera crew to this event. Without Bloggers this newsworthy event would have remained unknown to the public and history.

On Sunday, June 6th, a multi-ethnic, multi-racial coalition of Americans opposed to Islamic violence and intolerance rallied at the site of the World Trade Center in New York City.

9/11 families were joined by immigrants from India, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Africa, Iran and Europe to show opposition to the construction of a mega-mosque at Ground Zero. Others flew in from overseas to speak or just to share their particular ethnic communities’ experiences at the hands of Muslims.

These are parents and spouses of firefighters killed on 9/11. The rally took place just a minute’s walk from Ladder 10 Firehouse, where their loved ones were stationed for duty that terrible day. Ladder 10 lost seven firefighters.

Crowd estimates ranged from 5,000 (NYPD) to 10,000. The crowd overflowed the police barrier enclosures that ran the full length of two city blocks. This photo shows the enclosure in front of the stage at the intersection of Liberty and Church Streets. The second enclosure ran the length of the next block and can be seen on the other side of the traffic lights.

Thousands of additional participants filled the treed area of Zuccotti Park.

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are the founders of STOP ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA, which sponsored the rally. Ms. Geller is a citizen journalist and blogger who runs the human rights web site Atlas Shrugs. Mr. Spencer is the author of several books on Islam and head of the influential web site Jihad watch. Pamela Geller:

“Ground Zero is a war memorial, Ground Zero is a burial ground. We are asking for sensitivity…It is unconscionable to build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the jihadist attacks at Ground Zero, right there. We are asking the imam Rauf and Daisy Khan to be sensitive. For mutual respect and mutual understanding that is demanded of us every day.

There’s a hair-trigger sensitivity in the Muslim world, you can’t run the cartoons, you can’t say Mohammed, this is offensive. This is an offensive mosque. To build a shrine, an Islamic flag of conquest on the sacred ground the cherished site, of a conquered land. This is historic, this is Islamic history. It’s what they do. The St. Sofia in Turkey , the al-Quds, at the holiest Jewish site in Israel . Not here. This is where we take a stand. We must take a stand. We must say no.”

I do not believe that the landmarks commission controlled by Mayor Bloomberg, is going to stop this mosque. It’s not going to happen. Here’s Omar Muhamedi, on his human rights council, a CAIR lawyer, who sued the airlines and the Jane and John Does that saw something and said something on those airplanes, if you remember. That’s who’s on his human rights commission. It ain’t gonna happen with Bloomberg. We have to make it happen. You have to get involved.” (Pamela Geller)

Police enclosure on left, with crowd flowing out of park on right. The new Tower 7 and World Trade Center site are in the background. The green tent, center, is located immediately behind the stage.

Port Authority and NYPD officers kept watch over the rally and were well aware of the need for heightened security at this event. One of their own Port Authority officers, WTC Sergeant Alan T. De Vona was on duty at the World Trade Center on 9/11, 2001, and was one of the first to help victims of the terrorist attack. He spoke these words to the SIOA rally:

“It’s almost nine years. I’m hoping that America is watching. I’m hoping that America is remembering. Because, make no mistake. September 11 was an act of war. And thank the military that has lost almost 5,000 troops from that day, defending us. I don’t know what to say to jar America ’s memory. I want America to remember.”

Port Authority Police and FDNY firefighters are seen here gathered beneath this banner.

“The issues at stake will certainly affect the heart of American freedom, democracy, cultural values and tolerance. America is a tolerant country that allows for the free worship of all its citizens. But our tolerance has limits. Do we have to tolerate intolerant Islamic ideology and Muslims who preach intolerant Islam?”

Hindu human rights activists Narain Kataria, Prasad Yalamanchi and unidentified friend came from Mississippi and Chicago with banners and flyers highlighting the radical statements of imam Rauf and his jihadist roots.

Stephen Dyer and Gary Jules journalism students at York College, with Pamela Geller. Not one major network sent a satellite truck or camera crew to this event. Without bloggers this newsworthy event would have remained unknown to the public and history.

Pamela Geller is greeted by Hindu human rights activists Prasad Yalamanchi and Narain Kataria.

Bhupinder Singh Bhurji, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer. Singh Bhurji is the president of the NAMDHARI SIKH FOUNDATION. The foundation is a member of the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam (HRCARI). HRCARI is a coalition of Hindus, Sikhs, Christi ans from Sudan, Egypt and Iraq, moderate Muslims and Jews — who are victims and targets of radical Islam around the globe. He said, at another rally:

“Radical Islamists are killing people in India , trying to dominate that nation. And here too they come with violence against “infidels.” We are “infidels united,” standing together, brown, black and white, against this epoch’s fascist movement. Radical Islam wants to dominate entire world. They want everyone to surrender. Islam radical or otherwise. They want to put the Islamic flag on White House.”

Because of Islamic terrorism, America and the world have seen massive new security measures become a way of life. Anyone openly critical of Islam, or terrorist ideology, must surround themselves with security, or live in hiding. Those courageous enough to confront Islamism are criticized by the cowards and appeasers of the left who seek safety by supporting the enemy. Moderate Muslims were silent when Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in Amsterdam, just as moderate Muslims in the United States are generally reluctant to speak out against violent Islam. Moderate Muslims also face great danger in speaking out.

Geller and Spencer will press on despite the danger. They hope to inspire Americans to stand up and say enough of political correctness and work to stem the galloping islamization of America and Europe.

Obama: “Don’t think for yourself. Let me do it for you.”

Obama went on the offensive in a speech he recently gave at Hampton University in Virginia by criticizing bloggers he doesn’t agree with.

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter.

He’s using his bully pulpit, alright–to bully people who don’t agree with him. Since when does the President of the United States take upon himself the role of the Opinion-Cleanser in Chief? Do we now have a Thought-Crime Czar? Where does he get off telling us what ranks high on “the truth meter”?

Last time I checked, the First Amendment makes no such prescriptions.  There was no “truth meter” clause written into it by its various authors and signers. Nay, the First Amendment simply grants people the right to free speech, unabridged. In fact, there is no mention made whatsoever of any role of the Commander in Chief.

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.

Perhaps Obama is be thinking that just because it says Congress shall make no law or prescription, that it doesn’t mean Obama himself can’t. After all, it’s not actually written in there that he can’t. Well, perhaps that’s unsubstantiated conjecture, but it would certainly be in line with the lexicographical gymnastics typical of today’s so-called Constitutional law professors.

All of that is beside the point, though. Whether any speech be truth or lies is not for the person holding the highest office in the land to determine or promote. It is up to each individual and his/her own conscience.

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

Emancipation? From what, exactly? He doesn’t say. The media will fill that in for him, though, castigating the middle class as a bunch of rich hypocrites whose income must be redistributed, or some other socialist nonsense. Obama might as well have said, “Don’t be distracted by Fox News. Let me and my own media minions distract you instead with our manufactured crises and by meddling in your personal lives. We promise to never tell a lie. And you can take that to the bank.  We certainly did.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Open Letter to Liberal/Libertarian Friends: Arizona Immigration Law

To all my liberal and libertarian friends:

I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you on the idea that the Arizona Immigration law is racist, mean-spirited, and unconstitutional.

I admit that it might not be for a completely objective reason, since it’s partially a personal family reason for me. I, too, have friends from the other side of the border who came here illegally and are still here illegally. I’m never going to turn them in or anything. I’ve explained the moral issue behind what they’re doing by taking public services they didn’t pay into and have encouraged them to either get legal or go home and left it up to their own conscience. Even though they’ve preferred to stay, they’re still my friends. I know there are others like me, so I don’t think it’s in any way as polarized as the left and the media is duping people into believing with their daily sound bites.

I have more faith that bad cops will be taken out of the mix than I have suspicion that this is a carefully concerted conspiracy by the governor, law enforcement, and citizens of one state to subvert the 4th Amendment. If you’ve been to the Arizona border recently, it really is a war zone. Whereas people crossing in the past were non-violent and grateful for help they got from humanitarians, they now are regularly armed and are not shy about shooting, without even so much as a “hello”, at border patrol agents and even ranchers or average citizens they encounter. Home break-ins are at an all-time high, even to the point of people being at home during the time of the break-ins and the perps not even caring about it…just taking what they want with impunity. They know the cops can’t touch them because of the toothlessness of the Border Patrol’s “rules of engagement” and the ACLU. They know about the drug dealer shot by Ramos and Campeon and that not only did the dealer get off on a technicality, he successfully sued them with the help of US attorneys and got them put in jail. They know this when they boldly charge the border every day because it’s reported as “good news” in Mexican media.

The arguments by liberals, and some libertarians interested in legalizing the drug trade, seem to be broken down into four categories (mostly defined by emotions and eschewing the logic required to maintain):

  1. We have so much. Why not give it away?
  2. Civil Rights and freedom of expression are independent of a country’s borders.
  3. Requiring documentation of one’s citizenship status is the mark of a poor philosophy of government. We have found a higher standard…no documentation whatsoever.
  4. Illegal immigration and the drug trade are two separate issues.

Let’s break these down logically rather than emotionally.

  1. Nothing on earth is for free. Everything requires labor and capital to produce or distribute, and sometimes even consume. Government is not immune from the universal law of thermodynamics…there has not ever been, there is not now, nor will there ever be a such thing as a “free lunch”. No matter how much we may wish it to be so. “Free stuff” was purchased at the cost of another and given away to someone who didn’t work for it (and quite often, as in the case of the illegal immigrants we see holding up signs saying they’ll turn their gardening tools against Americans, doesn’t appreciate). Personally, I would feel guilty taking free medical care or free housing or free education or free food or free law enforcement or free legal services that I didn’t pay for even if I’m told by my host country that I’m welcome to it. That’s because, personally, I can’t stand being in the debt of anyone. I’d do everything I could do to return the favor somehow. But maybe that’s just a difference in life’s learned lessons between some of us and others.
  2. Of course we give people freedom of expression. I’m willing to let illegal immigrants speak out against the government that has housed and fed and employed them. But it seems the height of ignorance, and even ingratitude, to expect that the country you come to because of its stability due to the rule of law your own does not have cannot itself require you to follow the same laws you hope will protect you one day. The newspapers in El Paso and Southern Arizona are full of illegal-on-illegal violence. Who pays for the law enforcement services to protect illegals or to put them into the justice system so they can have their “Day in Court” for the crimes they committed or were committed against them? The very country they denounce as being racist and xenophobic. It boggles the mind.
  3. We must categorically reject the ill-conceived notion that it is a better foundational government philosophy to not want to root out ne’er-do-wells by having them go through a visa application before gaining admittance into the human rights and prosperity candy store that is America.  To me, the very desire for the absence of such checks is anarchistic and mafioso.  It puts the power into the hands of anyone who wishes to do Americans harm, rather than into the hands of Americans who want to protect their lives, families, liberty, and property. To put it in more personal terms, would you allow some strange man to come into your home and take care of your kids without at least a background check?  (Yuppies in New York City do this all the time, but New Yorkers aren’t exactly the most logical people in the world.)
  4. I think a bit more reading of border news stories and talking to average people who actually live near Arizona’s borders is on tap for a lot of Americans who believe the myth that drug trafficking and immigration are two separate concerns. They are decidedly not.  About 10-15 years ago, the required passage for smugglers was around US$1500 per person. Families would scrape and save and borrow to come up with the funds. One could even have respect for the fact that at least these poor folks were working hard to save enough to come here and take our free goodies. But the “coyotes” (smugglers) have wised up and realized there is a LOT more money to be made by providing border crossing for free in exchange for each crosser being a mule to carry over backpacks full of marijuana and cocaine. Drug dealers pay better than peasants. It is now a shameful fact that the vast majority of immigrants “pay” for their passage by carrying drugs…and weapons to defend themselves from BP agents and ranchers…so that they can deliver their payload to the handler on the other end. For if they do not deliver their payload, they may as well lie down and die in the Tucson desert.  With that in mind, do libertarians and liberals truly think that “better drug policy” is going to make a dent in the market for making immigrants into mules?  If the ideal they’re proposing is about making the drug trade legal so we can tax it and so that no crime will be committed by anyone for a fix or a sell and other fringe libertarian stuff, then that’s a whole other discussion.
  5. Of course, all of this would be irrelevant and unnecessary if the Democrats and certain self-interested, career politician Republicans (Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn) hadn’t introduced their amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill. This amendment, if it didn’t outright break the law by legislating a mandate that resulted in a failure to fully fund and build the border fence, at least hobbled it.  See the Secure Fence Act of 2006, ‘Where’s the fence?’ activist asks Congress, page 123 of the Omnibus bill (the actual amendment), and Bill guts border fence requirement.

    By forcing a single state of the union to pass its own law to fill the vacuum left by what is a basic and fundamental duty of the federal government (to protect the borders of national sovereignty), the federal government is ultimately to blame for any of the rights that are trampled upon here. That is, if we lived in a nation with a Commander in Chief who respected the Constitution and the rule of law and wasn’t always passing the buck.

    Another question to my liberal friends is this:  If a cop in Green Valley, Arizona sees a van stuffed to the ceiling with people racing along the freeway from Nogales to Tucson, isn’t he obligated to check it out…even just from a safety perspective (both for the occupants and anyone else unfortunate enough to crash into them)? If he then makes an arrest based on immigration status, why is he now in legal trouble since it’s illegal to enter the country without documentation? Why must his arrest of the occupants be solely on the basis of a routine traffic violation when a greater crime is at issue?

    Is it a civil or human right to be in another country, enjoying its services and benefits, illegally? If you believe (the lie) that borders are an artificial construct that stand in the way of human unity and progress, and that south-of-the-border countries are composed of kumbaya-singing humanitarians who can’t understand why there isn’t more free passage, why when we travel to Mexico is it a problem to not have one’s passport and/or birth certificate? Why can’t we just trot right over the border the other direction with the same impunity we offer to southern countries?

    The answer is simple. Our politicians have forgotten that a nation’s ability to be coherent, to be ruled by the rule of law rather than by mob or tyrant, lies in the integrity of its borders, its language, and its culture.  And they forget this to our detriment, as illustrated by Arizonans uniting to do for themselves what their federal government will not do for them.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    In this case, the powers were indeed delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution to protect our nation’s borders. The irony of this is that with all the desire to increase the size of government at the expense of the states, one would think that the Feds would jump at the chance to take on border enforcement (and a little bit more) already prescribed to be under its purview by the Founding Fathers. Believing that would be to make the mistake that anyone in Washington actually cared what the Founding Fathers thought, or, worse, to mistakenly believe that politicians in Washington aren’t overtly trying to subvert the Constitution.

    By abrogating solidly granted Federal powers to the states, they are unintentionally signalling their contempt for America and its freedoms. If this isn’t a reason to take them out at the polls in November, I don’t know what is.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]