If it had been Bush…

May 30, 2009

You know the answer: late-night comics would have been all over it, the network news shows would have had wall-to-wall coverage for three days, the New York Times would have called it "troubling." But, since it’s Obama, no biggie:

In which the president discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys

On his trip to get a burger with Brian Williams at Five Guys this afternoon, the president appears to have learned of the existence of a Defense Department intelligence arm, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, from an agency employee also at the burger restaurant.

"So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial…" Obama said, after the worker mentioned his employer, according to a video of the event.

"We work with, uh, satellite imagery," the worker, Walter replied.

Maybe the President doesn’t know about them because they save all the pretty pictures for Biden.


"Rebut, then confirm"

May 29, 2009

Charles Krauthammer on how Republicans should handle the Sotomayor nomination:

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling "facially race-neutral."

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds — consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama — that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

Ricci, of course, is the central plaintiff in the case Ricci v. DeStefano; Judge Sotomayor’s decision on appeal has been heavily criticized.

I agree with Krauthammer, albeit with one caveat: Democrats have enough votes to pass Sotomayor through the Senate, and perhaps enough to beat a filibuster. So, Republicans should have their "teaching moment" (as Charles describes it) and pass her through the committee to the full Senate. There they should demand full debate to continue illuminating the judicial philosophy of Judge Sotomayor (and progressive liberalism in general) and then vote against her en bloc. Don’t bother to filibuster; that would serve no purpose. Just grant that the President will have his choice, but also that we will not acquiesce in approving a judge whose beliefs are so at odds with our traditions of jurisprudence.

Not only will it be a teaching moment, but it will make clear the fundamental differences between the two parties.


Voter intimidation OK when it’s "our" guys?

May 29, 2009

The Obama Justice Department has dismissed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. This suit was brought under the Voting Rights Act and alleged that:

…on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2008 in Philadelphia, NBPPSD members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at the entrance to a polling location at 1221 Fairmount Avenue, wearing the uniform of the organization. It also states Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”

The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.

“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. “The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.”

I recall seeing news video of this incident at the time it happened. So, why was the suit dismissed? Does the Justice Department under Eric Holder not believe that attempts to intimidate voters are worth pursuing? Would these suits have been dismissed if the alleged intimidators had been White members of Aryan Nation attempting to discourage Obama voters, rather than African-American radicals and a local Democratic committee member intimidating White voters?

This is one of those incidents that genuinely calls for congressional investigation: Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department should have to explain publicly why obvious attempts to interfere with the voting rights of Philadelphia residents are not being prosecuted. Perhaps there was a legitimate reason for dropping the suit, but the public deserves to hear it.

But, in Chicago-on-the-Potomac, I wouldn’t bet on it.

LINKS: Ed Morrissey asks "Who put pressure on Justice?"

UPDATE: Perhaps I was wrong about that congressional investigation. There may be a spark of hope, yet.

UPDATE II: Oh, so that explains it. Congress! Investigate! Angry


The Obama Thugocracy

May 28, 2009


"Thugocracy" is the term Michael Barone coined before the election for the authoritarian, bullying tendencies he saw in the Obama campaign. At the time he had in mind their attempts to silence political critics and their support for "card check," which would mean the end of the secret ballot in union elections.

Now, of all things, we’re seeing further signs of it in the ailing auto industry. As part of its bankruptcy plan, Chrysler has announced plans to close 25% of its dealerships, As Mark Tapscott notes, all but one of those failed to donate to the Obama campaign:

The basic issue raised here is this: How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan learned from a House colleague that his Venice, Florida, dealership is on the hit list. Buchanan also has a Nissan franchise paired with the Chrysler facility in Venice.

"It’s an outrage. It’s not about me. I’m going to be fine," said Buchanan, the dealership’s majority owner. "You’re talking over 100,000 jobs. We’re supposed to be in the business of creating jobs, not killing jobs," Buchanan told News 10, a local Florida television station.

Buchanan, who succeeded former Rep. Katharine Harris in 2006, reportedly learned of his dealership’s termination from Rep.Candace Miller, R-MI. Buchanan owns a total of 23 dealerships in Florida and North Carolina.

Also fueling the controversy is the fact the RLJ-McCarty-Landers chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren’t being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. Go here for a detailed look at this situation. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The "J" is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor.

A lawyer representing a group of  Chrysler dealers who are on the hit list deposed senior Chrysler executives and later told Reuters that he believes the closings have been forced on the company by the White House.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force," said attorney Leonard Bellavia.

Emphasis added.

So here we have the federal government becoming the dominant partner in a major private industry, bullying legal creditors and evidently closing businesses to punish citizens who opposed them. This probably violates a subsection of Godwin’s Law, but, I have to ask…

When do we see the black shirts and a march on Rome? Waiting

LINKS: Lots more from Doug Ross, with updated information.


UPDATE: Allahpundit at Hot Air points out that data shows car dealerships skew largely GOP in their donations, which might explain the disparity in closures between Republican and Democrat donors.  On the other hand, it does not explain why some dealerships -profitable ones- were closed and other were left open.

UPDATE II: Tom Maguire thinks the statistical evidence is so up in the air that it’s hard to see if there’s any case for anything beyond crony capitalism in this, while Doug Ross in another post looks at the odds and thinks they’re significant. I’ve now moved to agnostic, but I’ve no doubt of of President Obama’s bent toward corrupted rule, whether one calls it Chicago-style crony capitalism, corporatism, or liberal fascism.

The case(s) against Judge Sotomayor

May 27, 2009

Yesterday I explained my reasons for opposing the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice on philosophical grounds. This morning, the Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog provides three cases ruled on by Judge Sotomayor that should at the least trouble any thoughtful observer concerned about the Constitution and the equal application of the law:

Equal Opportunity: In Ricci v. Destefano, Sotomayor joined an unsigned opinion rejecting a lawsuit from a group of firefighters who claimed the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated their civil rights by invalidating the results of a test administered to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, battled dyslexia and spent months studying for the test, which he passed, but because no African-American firefighters passed he was denied a promotion. Sotomayor’s curt rejection of Ricci’s claims prompted President Bill Clinton appointed Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes to write: “The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

Second Amendment: In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor joined an opinion holding that “it is settled law” that the Second Amendment only limits federal, and not state, gun control laws. Even the famously liberal Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion last month in Nordyke v. King.

Property Rights: In Didden v. Village of Port Chester, Sotomayor joined an unsigned opinion affirming Port Chester’s condemnation of land which plaintiff Bart Didden planned to build a pharmacy on. Didden had been approached by a politically connected developer who demanded either $800,000 from Didden or 50% stake in his pharmacy. When Didden did not comply, Port Chester condemned the land the very next day through eminent domain.

That last is even worse than the abominable Kelo decision. It’s clear that Judge Sotomayor has no regard for the property rights of the individual and may indeed be bigoted against White plaintiffs. These three cases should be explored thoroughly in the committee and the judge compelled to explain her reasoning. That may be impossible in the Ricci case, however, since that may well be going to the Supreme Court. Thus, it would be inappropriate for her to comment on it. It should still be raised by the Senators, however.

Again, I think these cases, when combined with her public statements on the role and conduct of judges, should disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

RELATED: Jonah Goldberg looks at the difference between "empathy" and "activism" and argues Ricci was a racist, reactionary decision. Rich Lowry calls it a bad day for impartiality.


Axis of Evil watch

May 26, 2009

Are Venezuela and Bolivia providing Iran with uranium for its nuclear-weapons program?



May 26, 2009

This morning President Obama announced his pick to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice David Souter: Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. While others far more learned in the law will weigh in on this, I find her unacceptable for two reasons:

She is on video stating that the Court of Appeals is a policy-making body:

“…Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [audience laughter]”

See for yourself:

Her clumsy disavowals aside, what Judge Sotomayor is advocating is nothing less than judicial imperialism. It’s rule by the courts in which judges make up the law to fit their sense of justice, rather than apply it based on the letter of the law, the intent of those who wrote it, and its admissibility under the Constitution. And it is anti-democratic to the core: under our system, policy -the laws under which we live- is made by the elected representatives of the People in the legislatures, not by unelected judges who serve for life and who never again have to face audit by the People for their decisions.

What Judge Sotomayor is advocating is an oligarchy of the black robes in which judges not only rule on the law, but create it, answerable only narrower layers of the oligarchy above them. Her opinion is anti-constitutional and would appall the Founders, and should itself disqualify her from the Supreme Court.

But wait, there’s more!

Judge Sotomayor has said race, gender, and ethnicity should play a factor in how a judge decides the law:

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor,….

She must never have noticed that statue of blind Justice around her courtrooms. This is so obvious, I can’t believe I have to make this point, but justice under the law applies equally to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, political belief, or gender. Yes, we’ve often fallen short of that over our history, but it the ideal at which we aim and the standard to which we hold ourselves. There is not one justice for White males and another for Chinese women, and no judge should claim a special knowledge of what is just or of a different justice, just because she was born into one or another group. Our rights under the Constitution are the birthright of each and every citizen, regardless of birth, and the most basic right of all is that the law applies equally to each and every citizen as a citizen, and for no other reason.

If Judge Sotomayor truly believes that ethnicity gives her insight into true justice, then she is not fit for the federal bench at all, not just the Supreme Court.

That said, the hearings begin in July, and I expect she will be confirmed. The Democrats have the votes, and the Republicans probably won’t have the will to sustain a filibuster. There’s a principle that Presidents should have their nominees passed, barring incompetence or corruption. Yeah, I know. The Democrats made a mockery of that principle when Bush was in office, but it’s still there. I’d argue that Judge Sotomayor’s positions outlined above imply an incompetent judicial philosophy, but I doubt that argument would carry the day.

Also, Obama played a trump card by nominating someone who would be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, thus pandering to a key group that voted for him in 2008, and among whom the Republicans are very weak. The Senate caucus will probably find it very difficult to oppose her and risk further alienating a group very deep into identity politics. Chicago-style politics at its best.

Still, I firmly believe the reasons I gave above are enough to mount a strong opposition to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination: if it can’t be derailed, then the Republicans can at least fight to expose her disturbing beliefs to the general public and force the Obama Administration and Senate Democrats to defend their support for judicial imperialism and the "principle" of unequal justice for all.

(via Don Surber)

UPDATE: Another reason to oppose Sotomayor’s nomination:

"[W]e who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience or heritage but attempt… continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate."

Emphasis added. Contrast that with her oath of office.


Zeroing in on what really matters

May 25, 2009

North Korea explodes a nuclear weapon, catching the Obama Administration by surprise, and the "progressive" nitwit who called the only person to see it coming "crazy" is worried about not hurting the North Koreans’ feelings.

And the Left wonders why no one with an ounce of sense trusts them with our national security. Go figure. I dont know

(via Legal Insurrection)


He saw it coming

May 25, 2009

Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton last Wednesday predicted that the North Koreans would take advantage of the Obama Administration’s naiveté to conduct another nuclear test. For this, he was roundly attacked by the Left.

Yesterday, he was proven right.

Like William Jacobson, I’m curious to see if any of those who called him crazy will apologize. I’m not holding my breath. I’m even more interested, however, to see if this will drive the Obama Administration to "get real" about the nuclear threats posed by both North Korea and Iran, who are both playing the administration for suckers.

Sadly, I doubt it. The usual outrage is being expressed by the usual suspects, who are about to make the customary appeal to the UN Security Council, which in turn will wring its hands and issue some vapid statement of concern.

Followed by an offer of aid to North Korea, if only they’d behave. Doh

Meanwhile, sadly on the outside of government, we have people like John Bolton, who sees the North Koreans and Iranians for what they are and understands the danger they pose.

President Palin, your National Security Advisor awaits you.

(hat tip: Power Line)

UPDATE: The administration whines that North Korea gave them no warning. That will inspire confidence….


Obama’s bad week

May 24, 2009

Jennifer Rubin on the President’s chickens coming home to roost:

The bottom line: this week was one in which reality rudely intruded into the Obama feel-good continual campaign. The bond markets can’t be spun. The unemployment figures can’t be ignored. The value of the U.S. dollar can’t be sustained when we are printing gobs of dollars.  And neither congressional Democrats nor the American people can be convinced it makes sense to move hardened terrorists from a distant, secure location to their neighborhood prison for the sake of currying favor with the American Left and European opinion makers.

As always, Jennifer is worth reading in toto.


Los Angeles Times biased? Surely you jest

May 24, 2009

Patterico, who’s made watching the Times a hobby, provides concrete examples of how the paper is biased toward Democrats and big government, including some howlers showing the paper’s bizarre logic.


Rewarding Jew-hatred at the UN

May 24, 2009

This guy is going to be the new head of UNESCO? Bernard-Henri Levy, Elie Wiesel, and Claude Lanzmann have a few questions about him:

Who declared in April 2001: "Israel has never contributed to Civilization in any era, for it has only ever appropriated the contributions of others" — and added almost two months later: "the Israeli culture is an inhumane culture; it is an aggressive, racist, pretentious culture based on one simple principle: steal what does not belong to in order to then claim its appropriation"?

Who explained in 1997, and has repeated it since in every way possible, that he was the "archenemy" of all attempts to normalize his country's relations with Israel?

Or who, as recently as 2008, responded to a deputy of the Egyptian parliament who was alarmed that Israeli books could be introduced into the Alexandria Library: "Burn these books; if there are any there, I will myself burn them in front of you"?

Read the whole thing. Those are the words of Farouk Hosny, the Egyptian Minister of Culture, who will become head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on June 1st, unless something is done to block him. Yes, a rabid anti-Semite and book-burner will become the world organization's chief spokesman for … culture. I guess Goebbels wasn't available.

Tell me again why we waste a dime on the UN? Waiting

RELATED: Religion of Tolerance watch.

Ya know, our president is kind of a jerk

May 23, 2009

Oh, for Pete’s sake! It’s Memorial Day weekend, you dope. A day on which you, the Commander in Chief, are supposed to express the nation’s appreciation to our Armed Forces for all the sacrifices they make. Do you think you could lay off slagging the prior administration and lying about its record just this once? Just this once, would it be possible for you to act like a president and not a candidate?

In his weekly sermon from the throne radio address, President Barack Obama had this to say:

"Our fighting men and women – and the military families who love them – embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.
And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear – and all who have worn – the proud uniform of our country."

Emphasis added.

As Stirewalt and others have noted, President Obama relies heavily on setting up straw men, false problems or choices, so that he can then present himself as the one who can bring resolution because he’s above it all. He did that time and again in his speech Thursday at the National Archives, and he did it again in his radio address.

Only, this time, he couldn’t resist slandering the Bush Administration by setting up another straw man: this time, that "we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility." And you know darn well he really means "Bush, Cheney, and all those nasty neocons," because they were the ones responsible to see to the troops’ welfare.

This is an appalling lie. If there’s one thing I realized about George W. Bush over seven years of war, it’s that he truly cares for the fighting men and women of the United States. I’d see it time and again as reports came out of how he’d visit the wounded or the families of the fallen, or to write them letters of condolence and comfort. It came out over and over in his speeches to the graduating classes at our military academies or at military bases, or when he’d choke up while presenting yet another posthumous medal. If there’s one thing one can say about George W. Bush, it’s that he took his responsibility to our Armed Forces very, very much to heart. It wasn’t a photo-op for him, it was his duty and his honor.

Contrast that with his successor, who, when on his World Victory Lap after having won the Democratic nomination, canceled a visit to wounded American servicemen in Germany because he couldn’t take a camera crew with him.

Callow. Narcissistic. Shallow. Yeah, our president is a jerk. Angry

(hat tip: Power Line)


Quote of the day

May 22, 2009

Charles Krauthammer on Obama in Bush’s clothing:

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That’s happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won’t have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.


Presidential PR gaffe of the year?

May 22, 2009

No, it’s not quite terrorizing Manhattan for a photo-op, but it’s right up there in the tone-deaf department:

Sobbing Kindergarteners Snubbed for Steelers? Kids locked out of White House; officials say they were too late

Thursday was supposed to be the highlight of the year for more than 100 kindergarteners from Stafford County, Va. They got up early and took a chartered bus to the White House for a school field trip. But when they arrived, all the 5-year-olds got was a lesson in disappointment.

The buses from Conway Elementary arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a little later than planned, and they were locked out.

"We were going to the White House, but we couldn’t get in so I felt sad," 5-year-old Cameron Stine said.

Parents say they were just 10 minutes late for their scheduled tour. School officials say White House staff said they needed to get ready for the president’s event with the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers, so they couldn’t come in.

Okay, I realize the White House operates on a tight schedule, but shouldn’t the staffer in charge of this have realized what a massive amount of egg on the face this would mean for his boss? I mean, doesn’t "Mean president makes little kids cry" just jump out at you? Hello? Are you saying to the world that the President of the United States is such a callow man-child that he’d tell little kids to shove it so he could hang with the jocks?

The reasonable solution was also the simplest: invite the kids in so they can meet the Steelers and the President, making their day and letting Obama bask in yet more media glory. See how easy that was?

I swear, for a guy who ran such a slick campaign and who (so we’ve been told – again and again) has superior judgment, Obama and his team have the public-relations savvy of a rock.


Religion of Tolerance watch

May 22, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, when swine flu was all the rage, an Egyptian government official and Islamic scholar issued a fatwa (religious ruling) that all pigs in Egypt should be killed because …wait for it… they’re descended from Jews!

Sheikh ‘Othman: The Jews that Allah Turned into Swine Were the Forefathers of Today’s Pigs

According to the website, Sheikh ‘Othman states in his fatwa that all pigs are descended from the Jews whom Allah transformed into apes, swine and worshippers of Satan, and must therefore be slaughtered. He bases this on Koran 5:60: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, [as judged] by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped Satan – these are [many times] worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"

The report states: "’Othman argues that this verse [refers] to the people of Moses, and that [Muslim commentators] Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari and Al-Qassimi bring proof of this in their books. He [also] points out that there are two schools of thought on this among the Koranic commentators: One opinion states that the Jews whom Allah turned into swine remained that way and died without multiplying, while the other says that they did multiply and that their descendants are still alive today.

"In support [of the latter opinion], the sheikh quotes hadiths in which the Prophet describes one of the signs that will herald the arrival of Judgment Day: The Jews will turn into pigs and will then be swallowed up by the earth."

The report quotes ‘Othman as saying: "I personally tend to believe that the pigs living today are descended from those Jews, and that is why Allah forbade us to eat them, saying, ‘Forbidden unto you [for food] are carrion and blood and swineflesh [Koran 5:3].’ In addition, one of the things that Jesus will do when he returns to earth on Judgment Day is kill all the pigs, and that is proof that they are descended from Jews. All the pigs on earth will be destroyed by Jesus on Judgment Day."

Yes, that’s right. Jesus is going to come back and kill all the Jew-pigs. Even South Park can’t satirize this — these clowns make mockeries of themselves.

Now, to be fair, the article cites Sheikh ‘Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, as saying those Jews turned into pigs and apes did not breed, so the current Jews cannot be descended from them. (Al-Azhar is one of the top Islamic universities and the center of Sunni thought.) Very tolerant of him, but it puts him at odds with his boss, Sheikh Tantawi, the head of Al-Azhar, who calls Jews

"…the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."

Read the whole document (also via the invaluable MEMRI) to get an idea of just how widespread in Islam is the belief that Jews are descended from animals — in other words, not really human.

This is what reveals the "peace process" between Israel and the Arabs to be a farce: with such dehumanization and raw Jew-hatred hardwired into Islam, how can one expect expect to reach anything resembling a genuine and just peace? And purging this anti-Semitism would require renouncing portions of the Qur’an itself, which is, in Islam, supposedly the literal word of Allah. So, how does one abjure Allah’s words about the Jews, and the learned opinions of all the major schools of Islamic law, and yet remain a good Muslim? How do you make peace with someone whose beloved religion tells him he has to hate you, fight you, kill you, and pray for your destruction?

Quite a quandary.

RELATED: Teach the children


RELATED II: The geopolitics that show the President is engaging in a fantasy if he thinks he can "community organize" the Mideast to peace.

RELATED III: Why do jihadists love attacking Jews? Must-reading.

(Video) Nancy Pelosi waterboarded!

May 21, 2009

About time, too. Applause


Technorati tags: , ,

Quote of the day

May 21, 2009

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney rebutting President Obama:

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things.

The text of Cheney’s speech is here. I’ll post a link to the President’s when I have it.

UPDATE: Here’s Obama’s speech.


Sorry, I can’t resist

May 21, 2009

Americans learning to like Dick. Blushing 


Technorati tags: , ,

When irony rises to the level of farce

May 21, 2009

Really. Was Washington Governor Christine Gregoire channeling Joe Biden or Harry Reid when she uttered her own example of nonsense words?

Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Gregoire – the Democrats are having a spectacular run of spectacularly stupid statements lately.

Maybe they all need teleprompters! Idea