Bomb Throwing Pacifist
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
I know it's late...
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Limbaugh Investigation is Racist
In retrospect, I feel that Rush Limbaugh is in a very sad state. Not only is he the hapless victim of a liberal media conspiracy and an overly zealous prosecutor, keen observers will note that the persecution of Rush is in fact a monstrous travesty of justice and an act of judicial racism. Is it any coincidence that just as the US begins to increase its prosecution of people under sex tourism laws, that the perpetrators of sex tourism crimes are overwhelmingly old, fat, balding white men with erectile dysfunction? I expect to have the ACLU on the case post-haste.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Polls, and polarity
yet another spiffy poll:
Ann Coulter’s new book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” has created a storm of controversy, but an online poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans overwhelmingly support Coulter and strongly disagree with her critics.A Sadly, No! poll reveals that most Americans believe typical NewsMax readers spend their days lying on sidewalks and eating their own earwax. Furthermore, 89% of Americans surveyed said NewsMax readers “shampoo their hair with Crisco and Mountain Dew” and “probably don’t have teeth.”
Brad R, you are by FAR the funniest guy on teh intarnets, bar none. Well, except for Retardo Montalban. And the guy who does "Ask a Ninja" videos on Youtube.
Friday, June 16, 2006
When a young St. Paul boy got to pick the theme for his third birthday party, he didn't pick Nemo or the Wiggles or Dora the Explorer. He didn't even pick his favorite sports team. Henry Schally picked "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."
I don't know which is sadder...the fact that another young American has been turned into a mindless TV-watching zombie, or that it took the forces of good (PBS) three years of constant exposure to achieve results easily duplicated by the forces of evil (Fox news) in three simple 1-hour sittings. Although it could be worse. All Henry Schally's tv-related impulses were confined to having party hats made with the likness of Jim Lehrer. If it had been a Fox drone, he'd either be sacrificing kittens to Cthulu or stabbing his parents with an O'Reilly-autographed falafel.
Proof that the mainstream media is broken beyond repair.
Sniper admits to two more killings, paper reports: Admittedly, this one is fairly obvious and as such does not require a prodigious display of intellectual calisthetics in order to comprehend. However, the question does in fact remain- what did the sniper enjoy more: pulling the trigger on his victims, or slaving furiously over the word processor in order to have his reports done in time for another episode of Law and Order? There is a profound temptation here to make a pun off of the paper's no-doubt killer content. I, on the other hand, would rather drink a urinal cake milkshake.
Men pack boats, leaving towns without husbands: Further proof that giving up on women and turning gay is not the solution to your own romantic insecurities. Oh sure, moving to Mass and marrying your long-term boyfriend sounds like striking a major blow for gender equality, but it's not all it's cracked up to be. Pretty soon you start to miss the constant stream of petty fights, simmering discontent, and incompatability-induced malaise your mother warned you about and then you'll have to go what all other Massachusetts couples do to escape from each other: you pack a boat and flee for the safety and comforts of the open ocean.
Man driving with wife's head causes crash: There are so many ways we could turn this into some kind of sick sexual joke. Instead, being a sportsman myself, I will turn it into a more appropriate analogy instead. Your wife's head should never be used as a driver. If anything, youre going to want to save that soft, downy oblong for more useful tasks when on the range, such as water bottle holder, a putter, or in a pinch as a cracking great golf cart hood ornament with which to strike terror into your foes.
Dead whale found in river, scientists puzzled: They think it must have been teens that did it. They didn't even bother to steal the radio or take the cell phone in the glove compartment.
I am the director, so I gets to write the prologue
We may well have come to a point in America where we have lost our collective mind – an observation I believe should be considered by every American if we are to survive as a society.
Well, I’m not sure if America has lost it’s collective mind, although if this sentence is representative of the bulk of wingnut writing, I would say that they have at least lost the language-processing centers of their brain, yes.
When I was growing up in the late '50s and early '60s, life didn't seem to be as violent or destructive as it is today. It seemed problems that arose were met with immediate and severe action.
Well, the fact that there were no major wars in the late 50s and early 60s calls into question the rational foundation for Smith’s argument. I would point out that the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and Cuban missile Crisis, and subsequent détente followed by involvement in Vietnam does not exactly rank high on my list when asked to name the top 10 most immediate and severe responses to international crises. Now if JFK had called the Soviet bluff and decided to conduct a nuclear first strike against the USSR, then we’d be getting somewhere!
For instance, if there was a child molester in the neighborhood, you could rest assured that the "men" of the neighborhood would "visit" him, and the pervert would regret the day his mother gave him birth. Right or wrong, that is the way it was.
And when you stop to think about it, was that really so wrong? I mean, sure the guy might not actually be a child molester, or might have once been convicted, served his time, and rehabilitated, or might just have looked “kinda funny,” but is it really wise to take that chance? I don’t know about you, but I for one would feel a lot safer if we reverted to a 1950’s (or for that matter, a 1690’s) style of vigilante justice in which outsiders were shunned, punished, and sometimes outright killed for straying from the norm. If it’s good enough for the wolves, it’s good enough for us.
If the men had to return to the pervert, they would beat the !@#$% out of the guy and he would never physically be able to hurt another child.
Wait, I thought you already said that the pervert would “regret the day his mother gave him birth.” But now you specifically say that they would beat him? If that’s the case, what did you mean the first time around? That they would “visit” him and put a Pat Boone record on or something?
Again, right or wrong, you decide – but it was rather effective in reducing child abuse to a rare occurrence.
And when we say child abuse here, we’re talking about the creepy, stranger on child homosexual-type child abuse. Not the kind of leather-belt discipline and iron, inflexible corporal punishment which was the norm in the regular 1950s household (and which limp-wristed, effeminate liberals have since demonized as a form of “child abuse” as well!).
There were no ACLU attorneys to talk about the pervert's rights. No liberal judges to allow the creep back on the street. It was dealt with on a local and very effective basis.
You’re darn tootin’. And when the shifty-eyed, dangerous looking negroes from the other side of the tracks crossed into the “good” section of town, no doubt in a dastardly quest to find pure white women to whistle at and stores in which to play their wild rock n’ roll music, the “men” of the neighborhood dealt with that in the same simple, direct, effective way: they started a race riot and burned half the city down. In your face, NAACP!
Today, if that same scenario were played out and the men took care of business, they would be arrested and made out to be the criminals while the molester would be seen as the victim. The child would be lost in the media frenzy. The headlines would read "Vigilante Mentality Sweeping the Nation." What is wrong with men protecting their neighborhoods and families?
I thought about making a sarcastic commentary to mock this particular paragraph, but instead, I think I’ll leave it as it is. The fact that it’s actually meant to be taken 100% seriously is really all that needs to be said about this writer. It’s funnier this way.
News flash: If you hurt one of my children, I can assure you I would not depend on the system today to bring justice. I wouldn't take the chance of the animal getting out of jail only to hurt another child. I would rather rot in prison then allow a pervert to ruin more lives until some honorable judge (rare these days) puts the creep away forever. You can't rehabilitate these sickos. You know why I know? They admit it themselves and in many cases have begged judges not to let them out only to have their pleas fall on deaf ears. So heroes become villains, and villains become victims and heroes of the left.
This reminds me of something you might hear being screamed through a microphone at end of a bad rap/metal show being run by a few homeless-looking guys channeling Yosemite Sam. Sure it’s loud and impressive sounding, but can you really make out anything coherent amidst all the mumblerage and drug-induced fog? Didn’t think so.
Take the young men and women who love this country and want to serve its people by joining the Armed Forces. They sacrifice all the fun of their youth and head off to boot camp where they are promptly trained in the fine art of fighting wars.
Whoa. Joining the Armed Forces means sacrificing all the fun of my youth? Man, watching those Army, Air Force, Marines and Navy commercials totally warped my perception of reality. And here I was thinking that all you’d get to do would be shoot guns, jump out of planes, climb walls, drive speedboats, launch missiles, control tanks, and fly off of aircraft carriers, all the while listening to some bitchin metal soundtrack. That blows.
Many weeks later, they are members of the finest and most moral military the world has ever seen. If their nation needs them, they are sent into battle to use the skills they have acquired. Lord forbid they have to use those skills, for if they do and they screw up in the smallest way, they are immediately treated as less than a common criminal. They are held in solitary confinement and given the title of butcher or worse. Now, keep in mind they were merely trying to kill the enemy that threatened to kill them and us.
God forbid they join the military fully knowing that by signing their contracts they agree to be bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice which allows for them to be held in solitary confinement while an investigation (by military authorities!) is underway. After all, all they did by “screwing up in the smallest way” was purposefully kill an entire family of non-combatants, including infants and a blind, wheelchair-bound 80 year old. It’s not like it was a big oopsie or anything.
In many cases (like Haditha) the enemy strikes and then blends back into the civilian population and becomes very difficult to distinguish. Yet the left demand our soldiers possess the supernatural ability to discern civilian from opposing enemy.
Or at the very least go out of their way to make every attempt to tell friend from foe before engaging. I mean, while civilian casualties are an inevitable part of warfare, it’d be kinda counterproductive for our whole image of “bringing peace and liberty to the region” if we just decide to open fire every time an Iraqi takes a sideways glance at our brave boys in uniform.
One error in judgment under intense pressure and they end up in the brig treated worse than the terrorist detainees in Gitmo. Hero to villain and villain to hero.
They’re held for over 4 years with no access to legal council, no access to friends and family, virtually no access to the outside world, and left in a legal “black hole” in which they have no real status or standing?
The great news of the week was the killing of al-Zarqawi. Our fine fighting men and women stayed the course, did not lose sight of the mission, did not cut and run, and got the No. 2 man in al-Qaida.
Gods-dammnit! What is it with the number-2 man in Al-Qaeda? Every single freaking times we kill someone in Iraq, it turns out that he’s someone’s number two. I mean, even now when we thought we finally got a number one, lo and behold! He’s actually another number two. Either our brave servicemen and servicenot-men need to do a better job, or the terrorists have to find themselves a couple number ones. I recommend a fresh pot of tea and plenty of salty foods.
[snip] Have we lost our minds? What happened to right is right and wrong is wrong? Moral relativism is creating a society that knows the difference between good and evil and yet cares not. Let the drug dealer go because the cop didn't say "good morning" politely enough. Release the rapist/murderer because the handling of the DNA evidence may have been in question. Call the lead detective a racist and your murderer O.J. Simpson goes free.
Prove that the accused serial rapist on trial is in fact innocent of the charges leveled against and let the bastard off the hook- just like that! I blame the welfare state and the liberal media bias.
What the h–- is going on? Why is this occurring?
I believe I already told you, you lazy bastard. I am not about to repeat myself just so you can save the strain on your eyes and fingers that scrolling up and rereading “I blame the welfare state and the liberal media bias” would entail, you thick sod.
Look, I know there are bad apples in every area of the human race. Not all Muslims flew planes into buildings on 9-11, but some did. Does that make all Muslims bad? No more so than a few bad soldiers representing all soldiers or a few bad cops representing all cops.
While I think the point he tries ever so glumly to make is well taken (if slightly idiotic and more than a little vapid), the accompanying imagery he provides of a quarter of the world’s population reverting to airborne lemmings on 9/11/06 more than compensates. In any case, I am discovering as I analyze this piece that much like an inconsiderate movie preview director, I am giving away all the good parts in advance. Please, go to renewamerica.us and check it out for yourself, lest I inadvertently ruin what may well be one of the most satisfying experiences of your no doubt limited and somewhat boring experience. Until next time!
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Osama Bin Laden on happy pills
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi died violently just as he lived his murderous life. The world is a safer place now that he is dead. His days of orchestrating death are over. This man's death is a moral victory.
And who in their right mind would try to argue with a paragraph like that? After all, it’s not every day that one encounters a 1-1 “death” to sentence ratio in the opening paragraph of a wingnut’s speech. Or at least not since Bush’s “Let’s kill em with a dead, dead, death until they are dead and dying diededy-die-die-die” speech of 9/12/01.
America can give praise to the Commander-in- Chief and our awesome brave troops for this successful outcome. Webcast of President G. W. Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060608.v.html
Word, like totally. I think it’s way 2 sweet that our like totally awesome President and his victory are like, soooooo off the chain! And those troops of ourz r way trippin. They be down wit a hotnessssss!! I don’t know bout you, bitchez, but I give them both MAD propz.
We should not be lulled into believing that because one "radical Islamic butcher" has died, Iraq will not continue to be the battle ground for terrorists. Our awesome troops will need to remain in this fledgling democracy for a while longer.
I agree totally. I also think that it would be premature wo-wait, wait, wait-WHAT?!?!?! Jesus H. Christ, I thought the whole point of this article was to point out that the liberals are being Isalmocommunoliberal traitors and dhimmis for not recognizing that the death of Al-Zarqawi marks the beginning of the end for the insurgency and that the democratic freedoms of a unified and peaceful Iraq are just hours away! Defeatist, rain-on-our-parade, burst-your bubble rhetoric I expected John Kerry, John Murtha, Michael Moore, and from Osama Bin Laden, not Marie Jon’! Please Marie, baby, say it ain’t so!
The old media just can't bring themselves to tell America the truth about the war on terror. There has always been a connection between Iraq and terrorists training. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was seen in Iraq shortly after 9/11.
Although, you’d think the fact that Al-Zarqaqi was in Iraq shortly after 9/11 would seem to suggest that the connection between terrorist training and Iraq did not in fact predate the attacks on the WTC, trying to clutter Marie with facts is like pissing in the ocean. No matter how much coffee you’ve had, it still won’t turn yellow (although it will tend to make the fish really annoyed).
After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist, Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into the Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while escaping the American GIs who toppled the Taliban.
Well, considering the fact that Kabul and Baghdad are about 1428 miles apart, and happen to be separated by another country (Iran, for the bean-counters out there), he must have had one hell of a leg injury in order to escape from his guards, make it out of the country, circumnavigate a presumably hostile foreign country (with a foreign language and hostile religious affiliation), and then make is safely to Iraq for recovery in an “elite” facility. Those must have been some freaking corns, man.
He convalesced in Baghdad for a period of about two months. Once he was back on his feet, Zarqawi opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq.
Would these be the “terrorist training facilities in Iraq” that also happened to be in Kurdistan, an area specifically not under the control of Saddam Hussein (and ironically under the protection of a US and British no-fly zone)? Would this be the Ansar al-Islam that was founded as a breakaway group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan with the sworn goal of deposing the PUK and replacing it with a fundamentalist Islamic state? Would this be the same group that was only founded in December of 2001, over 3 months after the WTC attacks? Is Marie Jon’ a glue-sniffing retard? In my professional opinion, the answer to all these questions can be summed up neatly into a one word response : yes.
The importance that the left puts on capturing or killing Bin Laden is almost laughable. He is no longer the be all or end all to terrorism. There are too many other terrorist factions. The groups called Hamas and Hezbollah are just two more to mention.
I couldn’t agree more. The left’s insistence on capturing or killing the person who was actually responsible for the 9/11 atrocities is laughable. Instead, we should use those attacks as a springboard to engage in unprovoked military actions against other groups of swarthy, gun-toting foreigners and ignore the original catalyst of our Dear Leader’s eternal war to resubjugate brown people. Considering the fact that one of these groups, Hamas, was recently elected into power during the Palestinian elections only serves to prove what horrible things can happen should be let an unapproved version of democracy spread in the middle east.
"Zarqawi was the operational command of the terrorist movement in Iraq. He led a campaign of car bombings, assassinations and suicide attacks that has taken the lives of many American forces and thousands of innocent Iraqis," Bush continued, adding that Usama bin Laden even called his recruit, "the prince of Al Qaeda in Iraq."
Rubbish. Just…rubbish. This statement is wrong on so many levels, attempting to address all of its errors, presuppositions and inconsistencies would be tantamount to searching for unicorns in an active volcano: time-consuming, expensive, and just too stupid to be contemplated by sane people.
"Although Zarqawi is dead, Bush warned that the "difficult and necessary" work in Iraq must continue as that country settles in with its new government that still faces seemingly increasing sectarian violence. Although that violence may continue, "the ideology of hate" that Zarqawi espoused has lost a key voice, the president added." Associated Press
Once again, Marie, I thought the whole point of this article was to point out that the liberals are dhimmi-appeasment-mullah-loving-war-hating-traitorous-blasphemous-heretical-defeatniks who fail to give our Dear Leader his due by quantifying the troops’ recent accomplishment. By giving us clear, concrete examples of the Leader putting his own actions into context (and yes, I use the term “his own actions” rather loosely), you aren’t exactly doing a great job of really taking to the left for doing the exact same thing.
The death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is good news for all the free world. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/ America needs to understand that a free Iraq will be an important ally in the war on terror. A free Iraq will serve as a defeat for the terrorists and al Qaeda. Iraq will serve as an example for other countries in the region. They also will desire freedom.
Why not? I mean, after looking at the great job we’ve done of bringing Freedom(tm) to Iraq, I can’t begin to count the number of people in other Islamic countries who are eagerly anticipating the arrival of a low-intensity civil war, an occupying army, skyrocketing crime rates, thousands of innocent civilian casualties, the rise of thuggish warlords and a glorious 75% reduction in the amount of electricity being generated. Not to mention the despoiling of their national museums and resources, the rise of Islamic fundamentalist and accompanied sectarian violence, a corrupt and incompetent puppet government, daily car bombings and shootouts, banditry, unemployment, a drastically reduced life expectancy, permanent western military bases…oh the list goes on and on.
A priority of the left is to see that Iraq loses its freedom. If you do not understand this, please listen to Air America radio cheer for the terrorists. Also read the words of Democrat Rep. John Murtha and Sen. John Kerry who want us to cut and run from Iraq, leaving people to die as they did in Vietnam.
Indeed! I can’t begin to count the number of times I have heard various liberal guests on Air America Radio (as well as personal friends of mine) cheer for the terrorists and praise the glorious leaders of the insurgency. In fact, just this morning, John Kerry was on the Rachel Maddow show and although I don’t have the transcript in front of me, I believe my favorite part of the entire episode was the part when Rachel informed him gleefully of another massive car bombing in Karballa, and Kerry was all like “Ahhallu akbar! All praise and glory be to the courageous Mujahadeen! For truly, the crusader infidels will rue the day when they invaded the unyeilding land of Islam. May their blood flow like a river, on and on and on, for all eternity! Glory to the Prophet! Amin!”
The New York Times and other leftists' rags will always have an anti-American twist to their op-ed's by tomorrow.. Their mantra will always be "it's America's and Bush's fault."Look for "the but" factor concerning Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Death, coming from the progressives. The "but factor" will be the "minimalizing" of the importance of this murderer's death due to the other unfortunate causalities.
You mean by saying things like “Although Zarqawi is dead, Bush warned that the ‘difficult and necessary’ work in Iraq must continue as that country settles in with its new government that still faces seemingly increasing sectarian violence?” I hate that defeatist shit.
Oh well kids, this goes on a little longer, but like I said, I'm tired, and ultimately trying to talk sense to someone like Marie is like trying...to...*sigh* Words fail. It's just a really, really dumb thing to try. Until next time!
Friday, June 09, 2006
Damn you, mainstream media!
Anyway, here's http://www.renewamerica.us Curtis Dahlgren. Note that while normally I save regular colors (like Red, Blue, Green, some shades of Yellow) for ordinary, sane points of view and try to maximize the use of earthy, frilly, and poop tones for the wingnuts' own pieces, today I figured I'd use red to make Dahlgren look even more deranged and pissed off than he already is. And judging by this photo, that ain't no easy task, let me assure you.
IF PATRICK HENRY AND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WERE ALIVE TODAY, they would be sent to a psychiatrist for "meds." The talk of talk radio this week has been about a new "study" regarding a newly-defined disease: Intermittent Explosive Disorder.
Yeesh. I can already see where this is going. Too bad what while “psychiatrists” have discovered a “new” mental illness which they have “named: Intermittent Explosive Disorder, “they” still have, not, found a cure for..KAYE GROGAN’S, syndrome. Not to mention the fact that if Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin were still alive today, I should sure as hell hope that the meds they would be taking would provide them with eternal youth instead of everlasting life alone. We’ve all seen what a few centuries of life did to Yoda, and it sure as hell wasn’t pretty.
The findings were released Monday in the June issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry. The findings show the little-studied disorder is much more common than previously thought, said lead author Ronald Kessler, a health care policy professor at Harvard Medical School."
The question here is whether Dahlgren is actually quoting something from a reputable, citable source, or if Kaye, Grogan’s “disorder” has run its natural course and he is just putting quotes around everything he writes for good measure. It's like a quote-within-a-quote-within-a-quote. Must...kill...subplots!
Harvard Yard has long been a Brownfield, but they have exceeded their own expectations with this one.
Indeed, old bean! Harrumph, harrumph. Now if you would be so kind as to take this parcel to the aerodrome and have it delivered to the Austo-Hungarian trade comission in Bechuanaland via aeroposte. There’s a good lad. Now, fetch us some more brandy and another set of wickets.
And on a side note, while I do not mean to come off as the walking, talking stereotypically elitist liberal academic or anything of that nature (even though in all fairness, I pretty much am), I do think that someone who puts the following in his bio doesn't have much room to talk regarding the rigorous academics of places like Harvard: Curtis is listed as a University of Wisconsin-Madison "alumnus" (loosely speaking, along with [...]Charles Lindbergh, [and] Dick Cheney).
Not only is Curtis proud that he attended the same school as a Nazi and a Nazi sympathizer (I'll let you decide which is which), he shares with them a propensity for cutting and runing from his academic battlefield while still short of total victory. Tool.
I suspect that the original thinking in this "study" took place after the 1994 congressional election, which liberals called a "temper tantrum" by "angry white males."
This is of course in contrast to Dahlberg’s own fond recollections of the presidential election of 1860 and subsequent succession from the union. Back then, white males were the only people allowed to vote. And if they weren’t mad, well they should have been too!
Of course, the riots in France were never blamed on "arsonists" but on "disaffected youths." The riots of the "sixties" were said to be "idealistic." The totally senseless suicide bombings in Israel have never been blamed on "ANGER," but are said by the media to merely reflect "hopelessness." The beheadings of non-Muslims aren't performed out of "anger" — that's simply "multiculturalism" and "insurgency."
Y’know, I think he’s full of shit. Let’s see here. Via the wonderous powers of Google and the joys of the internets…dum dee deed dum dum. Oh wow, lookie. A search for France and Arsonists brings up about 125,000 hits. Even if only 1% of those hits are related to the riots in France a few months back when thousands of cars were torched, you’d still have a good 1,250 hits linking arsonists to the French unrest. Unless of course, Dahlberg was awaiting some kind of official vetting report from the Ministry of Homeland Culture and Propaganda, in which case, I would direct him here.
THE DOUBLE STANDARD: Liberals have "righteous indignation"; conservatives have a disease. The public schools declare pre-emptive war on the problem by saturating the first grade class with Ritalin. I find it amazing that this new "study" hit the newswires on the same day that the U.S. Senate took up debate on a proposed amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage!
And there you have it folks. The single, most deliciously idiotic nugget of right wing insanity on the internets: psychologists and scientists are out to get you too. It was bad enough when all they wanted to do was prove that God didn’t create the world in six 24-hour days. But now, releasing a study on psychotic disorders on the same DAY the senate decides to debate a ban on gay marriage? And this only 12 years after the liberals claimed that the congressional elections of 1994 were the result of angry white men? People, this is gold. Pure, undiluted, triple-refined, ice-distilled, chrome-plated, 24-karat wingnut gold. My work here is done.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
This takes the cake
These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much.Oh. My. God. Just reread that first line from her statement, let it sink in, and then reread it again, for good measure. If you need any further confirmation that the woman is pure evil, you need look no further. The evidence is before you.
The best part though is this statement she made to Matt Lauer when he interviewed her.
That requires a foreign policy response. That pretty much sums up the whole situation for you. The right has failed miserably in everything it has done. It is rotten to the core, and unfortunately, the people who were the most affected by the event they use to justify and excuse every mostrosity they have carried out in America's name take a stand against them. And it pisses them off to no end because the 9/11 Widows are not on their side, do not like their president, and will not shy away from critisizing this administration's incompetence and failures.
COULTER: [They] speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.
LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?
COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation.
And all of a sudden, the vicious ad hominem attacks and insults the reich wingers use against their traditional opponents on the left are suddenly ineffective. They really, really, really, REALLY want to be able to call the 9/11 widows cowards, traitors, appeasers, enablers, dhimmis, and the like. But the can't, because they get called out on it- and rightfully so. Becauce to do so would put you on the same level as people who claim that mutilated Iraqi civillians are secretely happy that they lost their limbs and family members, just so they could have their 5 minutes of fame as anti-war advertisements for the left. Or if someone accused FDR of being secretly happy he had Polio, as that would automatically generate sympathy and cause reporters to treat him with kid gloves during his term as president. It just doesn't get much dumber than that.
It takes a special breed of wingnut to throw caution to the wind and jump off the bridge without a bungee cord, just to say you can. Fortunately, most wingnuts are not quite that dumb. But if you are desperate and turly in need of some wacky, viscious, snivelling, snarky, and just plain EVIL wingnuttery, just call Ann Coulter. She's your man.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
Barbarians at the Gates!
Why we need a constitutional amendment
Ooooh...a scary subtitle. I think I just felt a shiver go down my spine, and we haven't even hit the first sentance yet. This is gonna be good.
Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with President Bush and leaders of the pro-family movement.
Mark Earley and Chuck C here are members of the "pro-family" movement. But not the icky, cootie-filled “gays are people too” type family movement, complete with its gay-empowering Teletubbies family, the disturbingly undefined Bert-Ernie Sesame Street family, and Postcards From Buster’s Vermont lesbians and their maple-sugarin’ family. We’re talking about solid traditional family values here, like mommy baking pies in the afternoon and daddy giving a good ol’ fashioned leather-belt ass whuppin’ if the chores aren’t done on time. Coincidentally, Mark Earley (if indeed it is the same person we are thinking of-perish the thought) was a former candidate for governor of Virginia. Store this little factoid away for later kids, as it will soon become relevant.
The president will then speak to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Thank God we have a president who supports this. I have discussed it with him several times, and I can tell you that he understands fully the social, cultural, and legal reasons why amending the Constitution is the only way to protect marriage.
Sound the sirens, bells, whistles, and all that tackle, professor! I think we finally found the lodestone! After years and years of apathy on the part of GOP officials and the occasional pandering to the religious right in the moment of electoral crisis, we have finally found it. Definitive proof that the Religious Right and its Bible-thumping, crucifix-polishing crowd really is as dumb as they come.
Guys, the GOP did the gay marriage thing in the 2004 election to drum up support from your base and then proply forgot about it as soon as the last electoral votes were in, they used Terri Schiavo in Florida and even sent out a memo in which they talked about how this was a great issue for them to use to rally the evangelical base, and they're still doing it with immigration even as we speak. When are you going to realize that the GOP does NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR PET ISSUES. This is just a tool. They aren't serious about banning gay marriage, don't care about gay marriage, and to be honest, probably would rather not deal with the issue at all. As soon as the dust clears and they are safe from the threat of losing their majorities in 2006 (or, more likely, after they already have lost their seats and have to start again from scratch), your little pet projects and concerns will go out the window and will be forgotten...AGAIN. The fact that you fail to learn this simple fact is I believe the single, most damining indictment of your religious outlook to this very day. (As an interesting aside, did you know the word “Cretin” was originally a Pagan Roman insult used to hurl at people who were considered particularly gullible or overly credulous- in other words, Christians? It’s true, look time up. Le plus ca change…) Unfortunately, a lot of politicians don’t get it. They argue that we do not need a marriage amendment.
If we want to keep marriage between one man and one woman—which they say they do—then all we have to do is pass state referenda. Nineteen states have already done so. So amending the U.S. Constitution is unnecessary.
And just when the wingnut is starting to make a little sense…
Well, these politicians apparently do not understand the inexorable logic of a series of cases that make it virtually certain that when state statutes barring gay “marriage” reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down. Other politicians understand all too well, and when they claim that we do not need a marriage amendment, they are being disingenuous.
…it all comes crashing down. You see, part of the whole “leave it to the states” tack used by pro-family (whatever the hell that means) advocates is that once state bans on same-sex marriages reach the supreme court, they will be overturned on the grounds that they are discriminatory and discrimination is clearly banned in the constitution (or at the very least, heavily frowned on). Therefore, the only way to make sure that gays are not allowed to fall in love, marry, and get the same benefits Britney Spears presumably enjoyed for 50-odd hours in Las Vegas, it is essential that we draft a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining discrimination- presuming of course that the discrimination enshrined is of the gay-baiting variety and not of the more obvious racial type. It’s totally what the founding fathers would have wanted.
Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay “marriage.” In the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.
And as we all know, the definition of liberty and the meaning of life are best experienced when narrowly confined and framed within the Bible-based, evangelical Christianity that is the foundation and strength of this nation.
Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did.
Holy smokes! He’s finally found that website with the hot-hot-hot man-on-potted cactus action! Get me a black helicopter and a scrambled video uplink to Bill “Gorilla Testosterone” Frist. I believe this is what people in the action movies call “a situation.” I think this may call for emergency legislation. And no, I don’t care if congress is taking a potty break. I want them now, you hear me? NOW!
In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedy wrote the opinion, Romer v. Evans, saying the vote of the people demonstrated “animus,” that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.
Yeah! Nothing gets me more steamed than when people affirm their civil rights without a good reason. Next thing you know, women will be demanding the right to vote and hold office.
Then in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy. Again Justice Kennedy, who could have used a very simple Fourteenth Amendment guarantee argument, resorted instead to his holding in Casey and in Romer v. Evans. By legislating against homosexual behavior, the state was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.
For criminalizing an act which hurt precisely nobody and was perfectly legal for heterosexual couples. I mean, how much more specific do you have to get before you suddenly cross the magic threshold of prejudice? And on another side note, before the other shoe drops and you decide to go off on a rant about judicial tyrants and activist courts blah wonk wonk yak-awooga circumnavigating the desires of the voters and in essence suppressing democracy, let me remind you of another activist decision on the part of the courts which no doubt pissed off the voters to no end either. The case was Loving v. Virginia, and it overturned Virginia’s racial marriage laws. Oh yeah man, that was totally tyrannical.
Justice Scalia delivered a blistering dissent. “Today’s opinion,” he said, “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted the distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions . . . ” He went on to charge that the case meant the end to the possibility of all legislation concerning morality.
Because once you decriminalize homosexual behavior between consenting adults, you start down that slippery slope and its only a matter of time before murder is legalized (and not murder as in the blasocyst-Americans variety, or the murder which is done when people wear uniforms and carry flags, but like real-life, killing murder).
Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its own precedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional. The die is cast. An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay “marriage” as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, and the axe will fall.
In the distance to the west, just beyond the beltway, a column of black smoke rises. The pungent stench of burning legislation is carried to your nostrils on the warm spring breeze, and in the distance you can just barely make out the black-clad barbarians, rainbow flags floating in the sky, gavels swinging through the air, and the sounds of the conga-line battle chat echoing through the hills and vails. Na-na-na-na-na…GAY! Na-na-na-na-na…RIGHTS! Na-na-na-na-na…GAY! Only you hold the key to defeating them. Call your representative and demand pro-family legislation, now!
Just as with Roe v. Wade, the Court will take away the states’ rights to legislate.
The time to act is now. Don’t let politicians deceive you and tell you this is a state issue. The Supreme Court has already closed the door on that. The Marriage Protection Amendment is coming up for a vote tomorrow or the next day. Call your senators right now. Tell them this is the time to vote to protect the most important institution in American life. And if you think it’s just marriage at stake, think again.
If gays are allowed to marry, then the next thing you know your boys will be allowed to cry and your favorite NASCAR driver will be forced to put one of those “equal sign” stickers on his car. So act now, before it’s too late!