| "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." |
| "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." |
Paris still insists that emasculation and infantilization is the wave of the future.
I'll be more than happy to wave "good-bye" to this:
They don't even succeed at being funny. They're still just every bit as pathetic as they were three years ago.
When John McCain got the Republican nod, I made the following off-handed comment:
"Okay, so the Republicans have pretty well imploded. Next?"
I was only kidding! Okay? How was I supposed to know Barack Hussein Obama would make it this far?
It is now a federal crime to tamper with so-called "wetlands" (which can actually be dry most of the year).
But guess what happens if you don't mow your lawn?
Some issues aren't resolved by a popular vote: Mom says teacher let classmates vote autistic son out of class.
How can five-year-olds as a group know the difference between "the right thing" and "what I want"? Aren't the adults supposed to be teaching kindergarteners about that?
Oh, sorry. I forgot. Teaching right and wrong isn't the schools' job any more.
In this case, though, it's the adults, and not just the teachers, who refuse to get a clue:
[T]he state attorney's office concluded the matter did not meet the criteria for emotional child abuse, so no criminal charges will be filed, Steele said.
An adult just told a 5-year-old boy with cognitive issues that "nobody likes you." How on God's green earth does that not rise to the level of child abuse? And how is it that the chief law enforcers in Florida can't see that?
Oh, right, they aren't pursuing "the right thing," just "what they want."
Update 2008-05-30: And another vicious teacher in Indiana. I guess such evil is appropriate for my 666th post.
I am up waaaaaay too late doing this, but it just chaps my a$%: Hillary plays the "think of the children!" card, B. Hussein Obama tries to claim that Iraq posed no threat.
How many times must I repeat myself? Iraq was every bit the threat Afghanistan was. From CNN's own archives, February 13, 1999:
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
The plain fact is, Saddam Hussein had no interest in being a civilized player on the world stage, and actually desired to be an uncivilized player. To that end, he was willing to play host to al-Qaeda's well-heeled head (and to hell with his own people subjects) in order to antagonize the West, especially the United States, after such a humiliating rout from Kuwait.
Further, Hillary's husband knew the danger Iraq posed:
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
For B. Hussein Obama to claim that Iraq posed no threat is worse than ignorance of history. It is paving the way for the next terrorist attack on the United States.
Hillary knows that her proximity to history, coupled with her "representation" of the state most victimized on 9/11, makes withdrawal from Iraq politically very dangerous to her campaign. So she turns to the fear-mongering appeal to "think of the children!" She wants the United Nations village, not the parents, to raise the children, remember? The children's parents don't matter to her... except on Election Day.
These two are so incompetent in their campaigning, I wouldn't trust them to close the door in winter, let alone protect the freest people in history.
Some students from Franciscan University got Bill Clinton to expose his moral vacuity a couple days ago. I especially love the part where he tries to use "political will" to justify abortion-on-demand, as if these little things like "right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it.
Via Drudge: Hillary Goes Canvassing
And she let her anti-male sexism slip out a bit in the 23rd paragraph:
"No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.
Once again, special treatment for women. One must wonder how many self-hating males were there, cheering her on.
The headline says it all:
Kerry says he’ll be ready next time
I can't help but think of the line, "I'll get you, Gadget, next time."
During the PR push for the release of K-PAX , Kevin Spacey got many questions about his politics. (This was less than a year after the Florida 2000 election debacle.) He declined to answer, claiming that "the less the public knows about me as a person, the more effective I am as an actor."
I guess his career is heading down the toilet, if he no longer wants to hide his sympathies: Kevin Spacey meets with Chavez - Yahoo! News.
"You can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses," and Sean Penn and Danny Glover make for truly interesting "company."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
But you're looking for work in order to pay for health insurance. If you can't afford it, and the insurance is cut off, how are you going to get work under Hillary's ill-conceived socialist utopia?
A Nebraska state senator has decided to "sue God" in court, making all kinds of wild accusations against Him. Ostensibly, he's trying to make "a point about frivolous lawsuits," but the sound bite I heard with him on the radio puts the lie to that. He said, with a microphone in his face, that Christians are using the courts to push a "bigoted" agenda. I guess he hasn't looked in the mirror lately.
But the stickiest thing about it is, wasn't God already tried and executed 2,000 years ago? How can Chambers bring Him up on charges again?
Or maybe Chambers is just another anti-Christian twit who refuses to recognize God's triumph over death, against which even Chambers himself is powerless.
With the many calls to "never forget," I want to add our gratitude to those gracious Canucks who opened their homes on 9/11.
When our citizens and visitors were denied entry to the USA, even while they were in mid-air, they were forced to land in Canada. As it became obvious that they were, at least temporarily, homeless and needful, citizens of Canada took them in, fed them, sheltered them, washed their clothes and tended their children, until they could return home.
Canada embraced those whom we could not. I remember this. I will not forget.
To those Canadians, I say: Thank you, from the bottom of our national heart.
Fred Dalton Thompson has finally announced: he's running.
When he said, "every silver lining has a cloud," he basically got my vote. It's Fred '08 or nothing for me, less on issues, more on wavelength.
Where is he on the issues? So far, I haven't heard or seen anything I disagree with him on. And frankly, of the other candidates I've been able to follow (Rudy, Mitt, McCain), none of them seem to know how or when to present a poker face the way Fred does. In fact, I think that's Rudy's biggest weakness: his righteous anger toward the supporters of 9/11 is right, but not for a sitting President. His reactions to the House of Saud and Ron Paul demonstrate this. I like Rudy, and overall I think he's a great guy, but the man's best qualities are better focused domestically, not internationally. Fred, being the actor, and having that laid-back Southern "them's the facts, Jack" approach, will be more solid and less sway-able in dealings with foreign governments, I think.
But that's just me.
England is one of the most heavily-monitored Western societies, but that didn't stop terrorists from planting two bombs in London yesterday.
How much terror work had already escaped the notice of England's surveillance?
Yet here's an admission from the article:
Counter-terrorism officials were last night fearful of further attacks, and were candid about the limits of how much they could know about the scale of the threat.
Centralized security is not security, and can never stay ahead of all evil-doers. It is merely a single point of failure, waiting to be exploited.
On another blog discussion, stem-cell research came up as a "peripheral issue" in the current too-early presidential campaign season. It isn't peripheral to me, but rather one facet of the core issue: Life, the first "unalienable right" named in the Declaration of Independence.
Who supports, values, and cherishes Life?
Who denigrates, devalues, and disdains it?
And who supports them?
And who opposes them?
These questions clarify things for me, lots.
It's interesting that those who denigrate Life, and those who denigrate the freedoms we enjoy in the USA, often run parallel and about one millimeter apart. Not always, but too often to be attributed to "statistical error."
Life. It's a beautiful thing.
Congressional Democrats seem to prefer mediocrity over achievement. At least, according to Harry Reid:
"We set the bar too high."
So they want to lower it. That says it all.
I knew there had to be a hole in this case big enough to fit my car: Airport battles some Muslim cabbies
MINNEAPOLIS - Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties — including suspension of an airport taxi license — to Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers toting alcohol or service dogs...
Airports Commissioner Bert McKasy said the issue raised by Muslim cab drivers who say that carrying alcohol or dogs, including those that help people with disabilities, violates religious beliefs is "unfortunate."
If mere proximity to dogs is a sin in Islam, someone needs to tell some Middle Eastern nomads about this. The PBS show Nature showed a nomad with a dog on a leash in this week's episode Dogs That Changed the World: The Rise of the Dog. The clip was about 5 seconds long, roughly 20 minutes into the program.
(Update 29-Apr: The breed in question is the saluki, a sight hound, the ancestor of the modern greyhound and whippet. Part 2 of the program, Dogs that Changed the World: Dogs by Design had an extended segment on the saluki starting about 7 minutes into the program.)
I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood (or their mouthpieces, the Muslim American Society) care about the obvious truth. Using taqiyya (lying to the infidel) as their justification, they will make any claim they want about their religious beliefs, saying they are "oppressed" because we don't tolerate their intolerant ways. To them, it's irrelevant that their Muslim brothers in the Middle East have no problem keeping dogs around.
Fortunately, reasonable minds have prevailed for the time being, so the nomads will be allowed to use the taxis at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
I should have predicted this. The Scooter Libby Pardon Brigade is swinging into action, and the East Coast press corps is issuing lectures on why I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be left high and dry.
However, the linked article is long on political warnings, and short on any sense of justice. The second paragraph talks about three pardons by former presidents, and how they were exercised "outside normal channels," while ignoring the extraordinary aspects of Libby's prosecution, such as being subpoenaed by the grand jury directly, and the outrageously biased jury pool. The president's power to pardon is designed precisely for such circumstances, where a "not guilty" verdict is impossible despite facts.
Another warning is against "crimes against the system of justice, such as Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice convictions." In this stunning admission, the Washington Times points out that Scooter Libby's crime was not dancing to the orders of Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury. It had nothing to do with revealing the oh-so-secret identity of super-spy Valerie Plame and her 007 husband, Joe Wilson, an act to which someone else had already admitted (and which was merely re-stating what everyone driving by the Pentagon already knew, anyway).
The problem is, how can a grand jury prosecute for false testimony, without an actual crime, or even a substantial accusation of a crime? No need for testimony, no raison d'être for the grand jury. That didn't matter to Fitzgerald; the objective was to tear down Dick Cheney by any means possible, including guilt by association. A "guilty" verdict on any charge would serve his purposes, whether for an actual crime, or for simply having a faulty recollection in the grand jury room.
The article wraps up with a reminder to President Bush of a pardon he granted in his early days as governor of Texas. The pardoned was later caught doing worse. Be that as it may, what does it have to do with the Scooter Libby case?
Nothing. Just like the article's vacuous case against Libby himself.
(H/T: Cox & Forkum)
Hillary Clinton said this:
We need to have additional stem cell lines in order to pursue the promising avenues for research. I'm worried that the President has signaled he intends to veto this legislation, the first veto that he will use since he's been President.
Hillary Clinton also said this:
How can we say everything is fine... when we face the real threat of climate change, which is tinkering with God's creation?
Well? Which is it, Mrs. Clinton? Should we tinker, or not?
If, as the famous quote goes, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism," then I will prove my patriotism by dissenting.
I dissent against the notion that the Global War on Terrorism is all about American-Zionist expansionism:
At least 28 bombs exploded Sunday in apparently coordinated attacks in parts of southern Thailand plagued by a Muslim insurgency [but not occupied by the USA or Israel--ed.], killing three people and wounding more than 50, the military said.
And I dissent against the defeatist attitude taken by our current "leaders" in Congress:
The U.S. House of Representatives denounced President George W. Bush's Iraq troop buildup on Friday in a symbolic challenge to his unpopular war strategy that is expected to lead to a mighty struggle over financing the extra troops....
In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi forces sweeping through the city encountered little resistance to their offensive. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, under heavy U.S. pressure to show progress, told Bush the effort had been a "brilliant success" so far, while Bush said U.S. patience was not unlimited.
I will go further, and question the patriotism of these suicidal defeatists. They are trying to lead us, and through us the world, to subservience. Their prime influence is not the Jeffersonian notion of freedom in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the Communist front groups operating in the USA, like the "International Solidarity Movement" and the "Coalition for 'Peace' and 'Justice'" (the latter being only a euphemism for "Communism"). These groups would have us throw away our Constitution, give up our freedoms (including freedom to dissent, and what makes them think they would be exempt?), and bow before the ministers of Islamic Shari'a law.
Finally, I dissent against those who claim I must dissent in order to be considered a patriot. These pathetic "dissidents" exercise their "dissent" only selectively, and so betray their hatred of true patriotism.
5 awards, including the Best Record, Best Album (what's the difference?), and Best Song. The Grammys either have forgotten or just don't care.
I once "overheard" (indirectly) an immigrant from Uganda, when asked why the USA did so little to stop the genocide under Idi Amin. He laughed and said,
"Because we had no oil!"
I think the people of South Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Haiti, Bosnia, and Afghanistan might disagree.
Here are two quotes from NOW's homepage, copied as I type this:
Decades from now, when this country finally catches up with the rest of the developed world with regard to women's rights, we will look back on the Bush presidency as a temporary detour from our long history of building democracy one right and one freedom at a time.
New faces, new leadership, and renewed hope for equality, fairness, peace and prosperity are on the horizon, and NOW has our "to do" list ready.
In fact, these two quotes come as excerpts from the top two links in their "current articles" list. But with regard to today's horrible news from Jordan:
AMMAN, Jordan - A Jordanian man fatally shot his 17-year-old daughter whom he suspected of having sex despite a medical exam that proved her chastity, an official said Thursday. The man surrendered to police hours after the killing, saying he had done it for family honor....
The father shot the girl four times in the head on Tuesday. On Wednesday, an autopsy was performed that again showed "she was still a virgin," the pathologist said.
Where is NOW's strongly-worded condemnation of such misogyny? Why are they taking so long? What are they afraid of?
Somehow, "all of the above" doesn't feel like the right answer here. In fact, none of them carries the right weight, because
Human rights mean nothing to them, except for the defeat of capitalism and conservatism in general, and the Representative Republic established by the Constitution in particular. NOW doesn't care about elevating women's status and rights. Their philosophical ties to Communism just means they want to make everyone equal, even if it means equal in misery.
I just heard a little while ago that Paul Begala (not known for coherent thinking) takes offense at people calling his party the "Democrat Party," instead of the "Democratic Party," and the Congressional majority a "Democrat majority" (as President Bush referred to them in his State of the Union address last night). He was whining that "Democrat" is a noun, and refers to a person, not a party.
Given that the governing structure of their party has sacrificed all principles except death (of babies, the elderly, the ill, the oppressed, pro-freedom infidels), is it any wonder the only rallying point remaining is the charisma of the public figures?
They are no longer a "party of democracy," but rather a "party of [self-proclaimed] democrats."
More castrated men on the fashion runways, this time in Milan.
Notice here that the emphasis is on a man wearing clothing designed for a woman. This is intentional androgyny, not just a man wearing something weird.
Would any self-respecting woman be seen in public with such a poorly-defined male?
Kofi Annan wants some back payments, claiming he's "entitled" to compensation for earlier work corrupting the United Nations.
The man is already swimming in cash from the Oil-For-Food scandals, and he wants more? Well, of course. Who do we think he is?
A slimy toad, that's who. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Human Rights Watch has sunk to a new level of hypocrisy, with their call not to execute the Butcher of Baghdad (and Agence France-Presse's full assistance in spreading such vile excrement). Why they wish to grant him "rights" which his victims never got, I don't understand.
From the article:
Human Rights Watch urged the Iraqi government not to execute Saddam Hussein, describing the trial that convicted the former president for crimes against humanity as "deeply flawed."
Where were they when Saddam Hussein and his sons were running people through plastic shredders, feet first? Where was HRW when Uday Hussein's iron maiden was discovered?
"Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's international justice programme.
It isn't "indefensible in any case." Just ask the families of Clarence Ray Allen's victims. He was already behind bars, but he still presented a danger to society. And HRW would have him still alive, still endangering people.
"That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq's national security adviser underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein's trial," he added.
No, the announcement was left to the national security adviser, so that he could take measures to prepare security forces for the announcement.
Saddam was sentenced to death in November after a trial lasting more than a year for ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite civilians from the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, after an assassination attempt in 1982.
Punishing the whole town for the "crime" of a few? This in itself should irritate HRW, but noooo.
A panel of Iraqi judges rejected his appeal and upheld the sentence earlier Tuesday, setting the stage for the ousted dictator to be hanged within 30 days.
Again, this is more than Saddam's victims ever got, but don't expect HRW to notice this inconvenient little fact.
New York-based Human Rights Watch said the Iraqi appeals court should have conducted a thorough legal review of the verdict.
How does HRW know that the case didn't get a proper review? A panel of judges (and their numerous assistants, interns, secretaries, and other staffers) determined that the appeal was without merit.
The rights watchdog last month identified serious flaws in Saddam's trial, describing the trial in a 97-page report as "marred by so many procedural and substantive flaws that the verdict is unsound."
How many "trials" under Saddam had the same flaws? I heard no cries from HRW for "justice" over those cases.
Human Rights Watch routinely opposes the use of the death penalty, describing the punishment as inherently inhumane.
Unless the "criminal" is someone who converted from Islam to Christianity. Or a Muslim-born woman who highlights Islamic misogyny.Or one of the ~5 million Jews in Israel. Or any number of other "infractions" claimed by Muslims, in which cases HRW grants consent with their comparative silence. I would hardly call this opposition "routine."
It's time for Human Rights Watch to get over their selective "tolerance" and face facts: their history is replete with defense of murderous dictators, but no similarly vigorous defense of the victims of these self-declared thugs. Without a serious re-thinking of their core principles, Human Rights Watch risks falling into the dustbin of history.
I have come into direct contact with two veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and one of them has consented to a brief interview.
In order to give him the freedom to speak, I promised him two things up front: anonymity and final approval. The former, because I too am semi-anonymous; the latter, in case he said something about the operation, and later decided it should not be public knowledge. However, what follows is a direct transcription of our conversation, unedited and published with his full approval.
These Lefties keep confusing me.
They say they oppose censorship, and are very quick to point out when they are being censored (at least in their own minds). But let one heckler tell Barbra Streisand to Shut Up and Sing, and her response is
STFU!
Do they just want to censor everyone else? Yeah, I think that's it.
One image says it all:
Madeleine All-Dim toasts the successful test of a nuclear bomb with her Communist masters.
How long is nine minutes?
It's long enough to get a six-pack of beer from a convenience store, even with two other people ahead of you in line.
It's enough time to warm up the frozen Szechuan chicken in the microwave oven.
And it's enough time for a psychotic gunman to take over an Amish schoolhouse, before the police arrive.
Nine minutes.
The police cannot protect us everywhere we go, every minute of our lives.
Those who refuse to defend themselves and their loved ones with deadly force against their attackers are making a choice. As adults, they will reap the benefits, or the consequences, of that choice.
To those who claim the authority to demand the same of other people: Woe to you who promote the shedding of innocent blood. It would be
better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)
"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam."--Rosie O'Donnell, The View, 12-Sep-2006
What further proof do we need that Hollywood has fallen for a lie?
When the self-proclaimed "prophet" Pat Robertson tried to scare us with his Armageddon warnings, his already bleak credibility went down the drain. The rest of Christianity quickly put a distance between itself and such un-Biblical speculations.
In our society at large, murderers who declare their acts to be for "Christian" causes (e.g. James Kopp, Paul Hill, and Michael Griffin) are still prosecuted and punished for their crimes. They are not celebrated.
Islam celebrates its murderers. "Palestinian" children are indoctrinated from a very early age to be suicide bombers. Under shari'a law, the testimony of one man is enough to convict a woman of adultery, but at the same time, a young unmarried woman is not allowed to refuse a man's advances. This catch-22 results in the execution of many women every year, by stoning or strangulation hanging. Germany, Sweden, England, France, and Italy have all seen so-called "honor killings" of women who find their own boyfriends, rather than marry someone chosen by their fathers (usually first cousins).
Rosie herself is a perfect counter-example to her rant. In the USA, led by the "dangerous radical Christian" George W. Bush, Rosie O'Donnell has a seat on a daily TV show. In Afghanistan, under the Taliban, she would be stoned in public for sexual profligacy with a woman.
Her reckless attitude toward the truth is nothing but a dhimmi tool for Jihadists. Most people will simply change the channel. I choose to answer her lunacy, not ignore it. And it looks like I'm in good company.
"His interactions with customers seemed somewhat capricious" may describe the Soup Nazi, but it doesn't really touch the mass media's treatment of Christians and Muslims. The Muslims can expect the Politically Correct speech police to protect them from any potential offense, including factual criticism, but for the Christian George W. Bush, who was just "assassinated" in Death of a President, they have just four words:
"No empathy for you!"
It's not capricious; it's totally predictable. Thankfully, not everybody in Hollywood is saying this.
I expect the unedited replays of news on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN to come back and haunt some of the talking heads.
If you're not into that (I'm not, either), I strongly suggest you look through the collection of links at WindsOfChange.net, or at least read the inestimable Victor Davis Hanson's The Fruits of Appeasement.
In the meantime, I'll take the walk-on part in the war over a lead role in a cage.
How long until we see at the terrorist-supporting rallies, groups of homosexual women calling themselves Lesbos for Hezbos?
"Strange bedfellows," indeed.
In response to the anti-Israel rallies around the world this weekend, I have posted a brief photo essay on the logical results of supporting terrorists.
Bill Clinton still thinks he's the President, John Edwards won't admit he lost, and the Ohio socialists are happy to support these two men in their delusions.
Here are my random thoughts on the matter.
"A living wage," "economic justice," "a just economy," or any number of names, all boil down to one short-sighted purpose: forcible confiscation of the fruits of one person's hard work, in order to give it, unearned, to someone else.
Raising the minimum wage explicitly devalues the dollar. Therefore, Clinton, Edwards, and the AFL-CIO have no faith in US currency, but they are trying to dictate fiscal policy to the Ohio legislature.
One of the captions says, "John Edwards, former 2004 vice presidential candidate". It should say, "John Edwards, the losing 2004 vice presidential candidate." It isn't like he withdrew from the race.
When almost everyone makes $20/hr, then those making $19/hr won't be able to afford gasoline.
Governor Taft is such a left-leaning Republican, he probably won't have the balls to tell Clinton and Edwards where to stick it. Never mind that neither Clinton nor Edwards hold any elected or appointed position in Ohio's jurisdiction.
Did any of the ACORN whiners tip the workers at the Wexner Center? If ACORN is so worried about people's income, what is stopping them from having an immediate and measurable effect? I bet "let it begin with me" never crossed their minds.
How many full-time, non-tipped employees in Ohio actually make minimum wage? On a percentage basis, how does that compare to those making minimum wage in 1990, when the current $4.25/hr was instituted?
The Supreme Court has ruled that Osama bin Laden's chauffeur is supposed to get Geneva Convention treatment, despite the lack of reciprocity that the Geneva Convention requires of Osama and his minions. You know, things like wearing a uniform and refraining from torture. When terrorists refuse to do these simple things, the Geneva Convention is no longer binding on civilized people.
There are still these little revealing tidbits from Ass-Press writer Gina Holland:
The prison at Guantanamo Bay, erected in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, has been a flash point for international criticism. Hundreds of people suspected of ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban—including some teenagers—have been swept up by the U.S. military and secretly shipped there since 2002.
Why is being a teenager significant here? How many 18- and 19-year-olds do we have in our own military?
Three detainees committed suicide there this month, using sheets and clothing to hang themselves. The deaths brought new scrutiny and criticism of the prison, along with fresh calls for its closing.
Which was the whole purpose of the suicides, and Gina Holland is playing right into their hands. The giddiness in her voice is almost palpable in the article's text.
Is there no end to the anti-US bias in AP?
"When you find yourself in one, stop digging." The Dixie Chicks, and especially Natalie Maines, haven't yet figured that out.
They dine in fine international establishments. They question "the necessity for patriotism." They accuse people of trying to squelch their free speech. In other words, they are disconnected from their target audience, country/western music fans.
In fact, they've had to cancel several concerts. To make up the loss, they're taking their act to Canada, where US-bashing and Bush-bashing are "socially acceptable." (Never mind that it flies in the face of Canadian "hate speech" laws.)
Then there's this tidbit of whining:
"The reaction was as if Natalie had said 'Death to the President' or something," says violinist and vocalist [Martie] Maguire.
What stupid moral equivalence. If Natalie Maines had said "Death to the President," she'd be arrested by the Secret Service and charged with sedition and threatening the life of the President. But she did not say that. In fact, President Bush affirmed her right to Free Speech, just days after her rant!
If this was a "scrap" between the Dixie Chicks and George W. Bush, it was very one-sided. The Dixie Chicks earn their "Professional Victims" tag here, by trying to play the victims when there was no "oppression."
Today is the 62nd anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of five beaches: Omaha, Utah, Sword, Gold, and Juno. American, British, Canadian and French soldiers launched a powerful push against the totalitarian Nazis.
How did Google commemorate this? On their home page, they didn't (even though World Water Day and International Women's Day have previously made the cut). Instead, the founders tried to defend their partnership with totalitarians:
"It's perfectly reasonable to do something different, to say, 'Look, we're going to stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there.' That's an alternate path," Brin said. "It's not where we chose to go right now, but I can sort of see how people came to different conclusions about doing the right thing."
Which means they no longer care about their "Don't Be Evil" slogan. They even censored themselves to get on China's good(?!?) side.
Screw you, Google. Or would that be, "Screwgle"?
Tomorrow we remember the veterans no longer with us. They fought for the freedoms we now enjoy: religion, speech, press, vote, movement...
And the Internet. It is currently the greatest expression of Free Speech on the planet. You, dear reader, are a direct beneficiary of the prices the soldiers paid: personal fortunes, families, limbs, sanity, and yes, even lives. They paid those prices to guard our Constitutional freedoms.
Be grateful, and enjoy.
"After a Veterans' Affairs employee improperly brought the material home." This phrase summarizes the #1 threat to personal data online: human recklessness. Not ignorance, as with any number of CGI and SQL injection exploits. Just simple, stupid recklessness with other people's information.
Veterans' Administration Secretary Jim Nicholson exposed his ignorance of the severity of the breach with this statement:
I want to emphasize there was no medical records of any veteran and no financial information of any veteran that's been compromised.
This is simply not true. According to the AP article in front of me, the information compromised was for veterans who were discharged after 1975. The military has used Social Security numbers for soldier identification since the 1960's. It is a crucial ingredient in any attempt to steal a person's entire identity, for bank loans and credit cards, clean driving records, even forged documents for illegal aliens. As long as the Internal Revenue Service requires the SSN for its non-corporate tax forms, the SSN is financial information.
I am also waiting to find out how the "midlevel data analyst" was able to obtain unregulated access to production information. During project development, database administrators are supposed to supply bogus data. In this case, the developer should be using names like "Corporal Mickey Mouse" and "Sergeant Woody Woodpecker" with invalid SSN's. Any access to production data should be tightly controlled; the DBA clearly shares some of the blame for allowing unfettered access to so much data during project development. As this incident shows, all the security in the world does no good, when incompetents are guarding the gold mine.
However, the bulk of the blame, and any subsequent punishment, belongs to the "analyst" who so obviously has no clue about data flow. This idiot should never again enjoy our liberties, the trust of whose defenders was so carelessly betrayed.
The timing couldn't have been better. A suicide attempt prison riot at Gitmo, on the same day the United Nations chided the U.S. for their "maltreatment" of the prisoners.
I'll say it again: The next time some arrogant "human rights" asses (especially from the U.N. or Amnesty International) shows up at Gitmo, arrest them for espionage. Let them get a first-hand experience of life with Taliban supporters. Then, six months later, if they're found "not guilty" in a military tribunal, put them on a plane to Denmark. Before they leave the runway, make sure they understand that there won't be a trial the next time they show up at Gitmo.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin.)
Has the mainstream press given up trying to make hay out of the NSA domestic spying wiretapping call records database? More importantly, have they actually bothered to look up any pertinent case law or actual legislation?
I won't be one of their sheep. I already know what the Constitution says.
First point: Congress has the power to approve or reject dealing with foreign entities (Art. 1, Sect. 10). This authorizes them to investigate international phone records of United States corporations.
Second point: The President, as Commander in Chief, is empowered to make decisions regarding the implementation and execution of our border policies (Art. II, Sect. 2). When a phone call crosses the national border, it automatically enters the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.
Third point: The NSA is specifically
