Tagged: liberals Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 8:10 PM on 11/27/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: liberals,   

    Some Questions that I Wish Liberals Would Answer Honestly 

    I have some questions that I really would like someone on the left to answer honestly.  I don’t want to hear things thrown back about conservatives, just honest answers.  

    1. Progressives, women especially, talk about having safe and affordable access to birth control and reproductive rights.  This is one of the talking points used when discussing tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood.  My question is why have so many objections been raised when states, such as Virginia, are trying to pass laws that would require Planned Parenthood to have the same medical standards as a hospital?  If it is truly about “safe” then shouldn’t they be the first in line to demand that the environment be as safe and sterile as a hospital must be?  Or do they prefer that women end up in a Kermit Gosnell’s House of Horrors?  
    2. Why can’t black people be republicans or conservatives?  No one with an ounce of honesty can say that the left thinks it is OK.  While I am sure that some could care less, but the over the top rhetoric about race traitors, Oreos, Uncle Tom, images and talk are everywhere when come to a black person that happens to believe in limited government.  Michael Eric Dyson was challenged about it today and refused to answer the question and then went on to talk about how Herman Cain is racist.  
    3. If the goal is to make abortion safe and rare, why do they oppose laws that will give the mom to be a waiting period to think it over or to have an ultrasound so she can she for herself what she is about to kill?  
    4. Why are people on the far left trying to normalize sex with children?  
    5. If homosexuality is something that you are born with and cannot be changed, why isn’t pedophilia?  
    6. Where is the scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic?  Because there are cases of identical twins being of different orientations.  How can it be genetic if this is true?  
    7. Why is widely believed that homeschooled children are somehow less educated than their public school peers?  
    8. Why do liberals always bring up Hispanics when the conversation turns to illegal immigration?  Don’t they realize that illegal immigrants come from all over the world and are not all Hispanic?  The vast majority of illegal immigrants that I have known in my lifetime have been from the UK (many nannies where I grew up). I want them to get legal status and start paying taxes too.  
    9. How does having a Christmas tree in a town square force someone to be Christian?  
    10. What other holiday uses an evergreen tree?  
    11. Why am I less a woman because I am not a liberal?  
    12. Why don’t feminists speak out more about the mistreatment of women in Islamic countries?  Where are they about this woman who is a rape victim who is currently in jail and upon her release will be forced to marry her rapist?  Are they really that afraid to say anything negative about Islam?  If so, why?  

    • Adrienne 8:23 PM on 11/27/2011 Permalink | Reply

      They are incapable of answering questions based on truth and/or logic. Simple!

      • Sherry 2:09 PM on 11/28/2011 Permalink | Reply

        I have to agree! Even the oldest progressives have lost the fine art of critical thinking and those skills haven’t been taught in public schools for ages.

  • backyardconservative 12:10 PM on 07/07/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , liberals, , ,   

    More threats from the feminist left 

    Joan Walsh: “A Lot Is Not Known” About Bachmann’s Foster Children It’s predictable, but still shocking and sick when you see it.

    So was Michelle Bachmann somehow a slut for caring for children not her own?

    Top comment:

    My God!  This filthy extreme left Obamamaniac is really going to go after the foster children of Rep Bachman? I had to listen to this clip 3x to believe she actually said that. Obama’s children are off limits, but the extreme left is already planning to go after Rep Bachman’s children, and openly saying it publicly? I have never seen or heard anything as filthy or sleazy, and I’ve heard and seen a lot. Ms Walsh has hit a new low for the extreme left. I don’t know how you get dirtier than this. Obama should publicly reprimand her and tell the extreme left that people’s children are off limits, that is unless this started out of the White House?

      Bachmann’s closing on Romney even in New Hampshire, so she’s getting the Palin treatment. Good luck with that. Obama poll numbers lately. And those other inconvenient numbers.

  • backyardconservative 12:28 PM on 05/24/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , liberals, ,   

    Our no more thin mints culture war 

    This has come up on Potluck before. The battle intensifies, given the ObamaCare forced funding of abortion, and the more we know about Planned Parenthood. They are part of the PC in-crowd. Kathryn Jean Lopez, NRO, on Girl Scouts going rogue from their leftist-run organization:

    Sydney tells me: “Many Girl Scouts are good, wholesome girls. The problem lies within the national organization’s leadership and its lack of adherence to its promise of neutrality.” She adds that girls often need and “should get help, but Planned Parenthood and abortion — what GSUSA is directing them to — are not help. Abortion has serious risks for women, including breast cancer, infertility, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Does this sound like help?”

    “If we had a say,” Sydney continues, “we would make it so they were truly neutral about a girl’s health and sexuality, abortion and birth control, and political affiliations, as they promise to be. We would put the focus where it should be, on character-building and leadership activities.”

    Character building for girls. What a concept.

    Thankfully, there’s an alternative now. The American Heritage Girls. Faith Service Fun

  • backyardconservative 10:02 AM on 04/14/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , liberals,   

    What Kills A Skunk, Part Two 

    We heard the president’s speech. One of the most dismaying things about it, that makes most people recoil–aside from the pure demagoguery on the debt and spending tsunami we face–was that he invited Paul Ryan to come hear it. Paul Ryan, the GOP Budget Committee Chairman, and author of a brave and substantive plan to tackle our fiscal nightmare and wrestle it to the ground.

    Why would President Obama do this? Is he clueless of civil behavior?
    I think this comment has hit on it, in part:
    Why on earth would The One invite him to attend a speech that was designed to demagogue Ryan for electoral purposes?

    Because he’s a petty, thin-skinned girlie man who thinks he’s tough. He was trying to intimidate Ryan into backing off. Epic FAIL.

    Was that some sort of “if I’m going to kneecap this guy, I ought to at least look him in the eye” concession on Obama’s part?

    It’s what kills a skunk:

    Part Two.
    More to come.

    –crossposted at BackyardConservative

  • backyardconservative 2:48 PM on 04/01/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , liberals,   

    Those Multiple Dads 

    Actual MSNBC header: 1 in 5 US moms have kids with multiple dads, study says

    Comment via LucianneI am not aware of any kid that has a multiple dad

    April foolery aside, this kind of news keeps getting worse and worse.

    Growing up in a big, Catholic family I remember my mom commenting on some sneering in a Beatrix Potter book about large and improvident families. Ah yes, we were the irresponsible ones, breeding like bunnies.

    So in these days of popping birth control pills and hopping in and out of bed who is having the large “families”? Who is really being irresponsible? Isn’t the government aiding and abetting child abuse?

    And will the left ever admit this? Some glimmer of understanding:

    An important message that doesn’t appear to be getting through is just how hard it is to raise a child as a single parent.

    Well, duh, you know maybe Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown. Maybe if the Left hadn’t spent the last generation or two glorifying single motherhood and bashing family values we wouldn’t be seeing destructive stats like these.

    • nicedeb 3:09 PM on 04/01/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I’m convinced that the left doesn’t want healthy, intact families. The more dysfunctional families are, the more dependent they are on government.

    • zillaoftheresistance 3:36 PM on 04/01/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I know more women who have children by several different fathers than I do women whose kids have the same father.

    • backyardconservative 4:44 PM on 04/01/2011 Permalink | Reply

      It’s sad.

      But it’s another reason to push for smaller govt.

      Those Tommy Thompson welfare reforms back in the 80’s encourage marriage. We need more of that, not less, but this administration is trying to unwind even that positive step.

    • just a conservative girl 8:36 PM on 04/01/2011 Permalink | Reply

      I must be the odd one out. I know very few people who have children with more than one person. Only two of my friends have been divorced. Even growing up very few of my friends came from divorced homes. Now, were they happy? I don’t know. But they did stay together.

      I totally agree with Deb, the breakdown of the family is part of the far left agenda.

    • backyardconservative 9:24 PM on 04/01/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Well, I know very few as well.

      At my last college reunion about 5 years ago all my roommates were still married–we were a group of 5 and 3 of us were married to guys we met in college.

      But then the only real friends I have any more are conservatives:) in my PC town.

    • zillaoftheresistance 4:19 PM on 04/07/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Well I am from NY, if that makes a difference LOL.

  • backyardconservative 10:13 AM on 03/30/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , legal activism, liberals, , ,   

    Mad City judge returns from vacation, inserts self again 

    Oh yeah, she had said she needed more time to consider whether the passage of the bill violated the open meetings act, then went on vacation. Now she’s baaaack, and still hasn’t ruled on the merits (such as they are NOTThe Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

    This Secretary of State business reminds me of the Illinois posturing about seating seedy Dem Sen. Roland Burris, using process to evade common sense. This is how the leftie-leaning legal profession strikes many of us these days. I thank God that after my acceptance at UW law school years ago, when I was still a wavering liberal, I got a private sector job offer and never looked back.
    Another reason to eliminate Secretaries of State. (Isn’t that how corrupt IL GOP Gov. Ryan ascended?) And eliminate process, if it means you have to publish laws in the MSM for them to take effect. Why should they have so much power vested in them?
    An interesting split among law profs at Marquette. One agrees with Judge SEIU Sumi. The other:
    Richard Esenberg said he was not surprised by the ruling but criticized the judge.

    “There is applicable Supreme Court precedent that a court has no authority to enjoin the publication of a law,” he said. “The state has repeatedly cited that law to her and as far as I know she has not only failed to explain herself about why she feels she has the authority, she hasn’t even acknowledged there is an issue. That just leaves me speechless.”

    Esenberg was referring to a 1943 state Supreme Court opinion that said courts could not interfere with legislation until it is published and becomes law.

    According to the JS the Assistant Attorney General says the law is absolutely still in effect.

    As for the public sector unions and their ally Dem WI Secretary of State LaFollette, struck inarticulate by the TEA party, I will quote his famous relative, Fighting Bob:

    “Free men of every generation must combat renewed efforts of organized force and greed to destroy liberty.”

    More over by me at BackyardConservative.

  • nicedeb 1:46 PM on 03/25/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: liberals   

    Poll: New Tone Nominees For Week of March 20-26 

    The left loves to chastise conservatives for their “vitriolic discourse”, yet often fail spectacularly to maintain basic civility in their own discourse. The New Tone Award is reserved for liberal notables who demonstrate that double standard.

    Bill Maher, for calling Sarah Palin  a ‘dumb twat’:

    “Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you –”

    …there’s a certain brand of evangelical Christians who believe in Revelations, that Armageddon is coming, and that will happen in Israel basically….but that’s why they like Israel. That’s why they want Israel to be strong. It’s not because…It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.

    “You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.”

    Joy Behar for lying about Reagan’s AIDS record during her HLN Elizabeth Taylor tribute:

    She didn’t like Ronald Reagan’s politics. She knew the Reagans and she was friends with them, I think, but she didn’t like his politics. And here is the reason, I think, because as the AIDS crisis began in 1981, and Reagan couldn’t even say the word “AIDS” until 1987, after 40,000 people had died from the disease.

    They’re just looking for opportunities to cheap shot the President. The people who were criticizing Bush had a coherent, had coherent reasons to criticize him. It wasn’t like that. There was coherence to the point of view, where as here, I think you’re exactly right. They would just be trashing him whatever he did, and it feels that way. It feels cheap, it feels shallow.

    We have to think much more creatively. The key thing… What does the other side fear the most – they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

    The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

    • How do we bring down the stock market
    • How do we bring down their bonuses
    • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich

    Frances Fox-Piven’s Leftist Buddy, Barbra Ehrenreich, for Attacking the Tea Party and Saying Americans Are Prozac-Popping Wusses That Won’t Riot:

    Video at the link.

    “Not since the dark days of the Bush administration have we seen a Republican-controlled Congress that is so intent on pushing their agenda in Washington — protecting tax breaks for oil companies making record profits, attempting to roll back environmental regulations, and not only refusing to pass climate change legislation in any form but refusing to acknowledge that climate change even exists,” Gore wrote in a fundraising pitch for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

    Dem Rep. Gary Ackerman and MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur for agreeing that opposing Obama is “unpatriotic”…

    On his MSNBC show this evening, Cenk Uygur suggested that opposition to President Obama’s Libya policy is “unpatriotic.” For good measure, Dem congressman Gary Ackerman stated that opposing the president is “cheering for the wrong team.”

    You may cast your vote, here.


    Cross-posted at Minority Report, NewsReal Blog, and Nice Deb.

    • nicedeb 3:01 PM on 03/25/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Huh. For some reason, some of the excerpts didn’t work….I have no idea how to fix that. It didn’t happen anywhere else.

    • nicedeb 3:05 PM on 03/25/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Never mind. fixed it by painting over them with black ink.

  • backyardconservative 9:39 AM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , liberals, , ,   

    So while stoning a woman for illegal sex, for instance (rajam), is not done everywhere, the penalty is ‘on the books’ 

    It’s not in Oklahoma yet, but the BBC story on Sharia in Indonesia ignores the broader issue. Via Jihad Watch. Comment featured above.

    I see the Tribune has another op-ed pooh-poohing concerns. Have you seen these kind of columns in your local media?

    Do liberals really want to defend this?

    I’ve wondered for years when feminists, and gays, would join us in recognizing this theocratic, terrorist intolerance threat.

    …On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.

    • Yukio Ngaby 11:25 AM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      You wrote: “…On the books. We’re not talking about, say, a law that may be still hanging around like Wisconsin’s mandate that a slice of apple pie can’t be served without cheese, or that Harvard professors may graze their cows in Harvard Yard.”

      No, the commenter was talking about Sharia law being intrinsically part of Islam.

      He wrote: “The problem with sharia is, yer honor, that it is ‘Allah’s word’ expressed as law…it is sealed in cement, every part of it…It may not be enforced uniformly in every location, for various reasons, but it is always, ‘on the books'”

      Sharia law is not a monolithic thing. It is interpreted differently by various Muslim schools (often for political gain) and comes from multiple secondary sources (not merely the Koran) that are not generally agreed upon– one school believes cleric A’s interpretation should be included, another school says absolutely not, etc.

      The commenter’s wrong by the way. Yes, a form of Sharia IS practiced by all Muslims, but what’s “on the books” varies greatly from one school of Islam to another. Islam is NOT a single religion. Just as Christianity is not a single religion.

      • fuzislippers 6:45 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what commonalities there are in Sharia? You know, those pesky little things that seem to crop up in every instance that it is applied. Baselines, like women are property, lopping off various body parts is a wonderful deterrent and punishment, and . . . oh, let’s see, non-Muslims are treated under a different set of principles, rules, and laws than Muslims. There must be others, though, whatever might they be?

        • Yukio Ngaby 9:07 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Lopping off various body parts and women as property are not universals of Islam Fuzzy…

          The idea of women as property certainly did not originate with Islam, nor did harsh penalties for breaking laws.

          • fuzislippers 7:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Wow, Yukio, really? Which Muslim state or country doesn’t lop off hands, feet, heads for punishment and doesn’t deem women as property? Seriously, which one?

            • Maia 12:22 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply


              The whole “lopping of hands, feet, heads”- I assume the “hands” is in reference to Saudi Arabia? Reality check- In Saudi Arabia, ONLY after three previous convictions for theft is a hand removed as punishment. If you don’t think you could sell this as a good idea to social conservatives here, check out the popularity of three strikes laws in general (despite their lack of efficacy) and do a quick survey. I imagine you’d be surprised. In addition, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is the ONLY Middle Eastern/Islamic country that actually practices this.

              By the “heads, etc” I assume you are referring to the death penalty in general? Yeah, gee, the U.S. doesn’t have a death penalty… Oh wait, we totally DO!!! We don’t give the death penalty for say, adultery (zina), but NEITHER DO THE VAST MAJORITY OF ISLAMIC STATES. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are outliers in this case, not the norm.

              This isn’t a defense of fundamentalism OF ANY KIND. The point is that Islamic fundamentalism is not inherently different from or worse than Christian fundamentalism (who are just as eager to treat women as property). The differences between these mostly have to do with the conditions of colonialism. You can ignore that if you choose, but it makes you wrong-headed.

              • Quite Rightly 2:35 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

                Maia: Why don’t you look up “cross amputation” before you lecture people on the cruelty of fundamentalist Christians, who, by the way, authored the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

    • backyardconservative 1:44 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.

      The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent. And if you live in Shiite Iran, well, you could be just dragged out of your car and beaten to death. Or shot on the street.

      Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.

      • Yukio Ngaby 9:02 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        You: wrote: “Yes. True. There are numerous hadiths. But. That’s kind of a problem too, isn’t it. Because the hammer could come down on you if you live in a country, say, like Indonesia, which is migrating to a more radical form of Islam, at least in this province.”

        Not quite sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the various forms of Islam are all a bad thing because any Muslim could radicalize at any time?

        Yes, Indonesia is in the midst of a pretty important political struggle. After Suharto was deposed, Muslim radicals (a distinct minority) emerged within the country, made proper political allies, and are now a significant political supporter of the Yudhoyono administration. They push for the de-secularization (is that a word?) of the country. All of this was absolutely ignored by Obama in his Indonesia trip BTW.

        Radical Muslims are significant players in Indonesia in similar ways that white supremacists are political players in Europe. They have enough reliable, fervent clout to swing close votes– so they are courted by the mainstream political parties.

        BTW, Aceh has been pushing for political independence from Indonesia since the 1970s. It was pretty much the tsunami that forced a (most likely temporary) diplomatic solution to the problem. Aceh is a special case among even the Indonesian provinces that have greater administrative and legislative autonomy. In 2003 it instituted a form of Sharia as its legal system– bypassing Indonesia’s secular laws and also can legally receive direct foreign investment– which includes money from Islamic radicals especially Saudi Arabia.

        You wrote: “The dominant form of Islam is Sunni Wahhabist–the most radical, well-funded and, yes, violent.”

        How do you come to this conclusion? Based on what criteria makes it dominant? Wahhabi is certainly not the most popular form of Islam in terms of numbers of believers– not by a long shot. Since it is dominant in Saudi Arabia there’s a lot of money associated with it and it’s aggressively promoted especially in the Muslim world– but I don’t see Wahhabi as being anything that could be described as dominant.

        You wrote: “Sharia law and Islam does call for the supremacy of Islam, doesn’t it? That non-believers are second class citizens. And it’s OK to put special taxes on them or even kill them if they don’t submit. Depending on your interpretation.”

        Well, everything is dependent on one’s interpretation. All forms of religion believe that they are the truth and thus bestow certain privileges on their members. The special taxes and killing non-believers is hardly a universal belief within Islam.

        The problem really comes about when there is no separation between church and state. I addressed this problem when talking about gay marriage (the govt. not having the authority to dictate what constitutes being sacred– such as the institution of marriage), but the point holds true for other countries as well.

        • backyardconservative 10:13 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          The supremacist belief is inherent to Islam.

          That is why some brave Islamic scholars have called for reform. Islam could use a reformation.

          • Yukio Ngaby 10:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Yes, Islam does need reformation, especially in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, among aother places. However, saying Islam is evil and Sharia is trying to take over the world, does not encourage reform.

            Reform has to come from within, but can be supported. As I have said before, the trick is finding the people and countries who are legit and have a chance of succeeding.

          • Maia 12:16 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

            “The supremacist belief is inherent to Islam.”

            Actually, the supremacist belief is inherent to ALL Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Judaism included). That’s what makes ALL of you people hard to deal with…

            • backyardconservative 4:02 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

              No other religion sets itself forward as an entire body of law that non-believers must adhere to.

              And does any other religion punish those who wish to leave with the threat of death?

              Some Islamic countries may not enforce this but it is there. Hanging over people’s heads.

          • Maia 12:24 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Sure, Islam could use reformation. As could, oh, EVERY religious institution out there.

            The point is that your focus on Islam is 1) factually, observably based on falsehoods and myths and 2) inspired by fear that is promoted to you because your fear induces you to support the oppressive policies of powerful entities in the world (most of whom are NOT Muslim/Islamic).

            • backyardconservative 4:03 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

              I suggest you be more specific. Unless you’re afraid of “the oppressive policies of powerful entities”.

    • Quite Rightly 2:17 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

      “Do liberals really want to defend this?”

      You could try asking the sweet young thing who innocently brought what she called an “Islamic” dish as her contribution to our family’s Thanksgiving dinner table.

      In her liberal circle at least, it seems, apple pie with Wisconsin cheese is now considered as passé as Christmas and the Constitution.

      • Yukio Ngaby 9:10 PM on 12/01/2010 Permalink | Reply

        My wife (not a Muslim BTW) loves couscous. Should we never serve this at Thanksgiving?

        • Quite Rightly 7:26 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Yukio–How non-PC of me! I should have realized that it is outré to suggest that Islamic dishes are not traditional fare at an American Christian table.

          I did take note, however, that the sweet young thing did not call her recipe “Moroccan” or “Lebanese” or “Middle Easter, or whatever, but “Islamic.”

          I used to prepare and enjoy couscous at least once a week. Got a fantastic recipe from a friend who married a Middle Eastern guy. Haven’t eaten it since 9/11.

          • fuzislippers 7:29 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

            lol, QR, Yukio can serve whatever he likes at his Thanksgiving table, but there is no way it’s traditional American Christian fare. He knows this. My guess is he’s becoming alarmed by the rightward swing of the ideological pendulum, right, Yukio?

            • Yukio Ngaby 10:19 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

              No. I’m being alarmed at the attempts to segregate American populations, the emerging “us vs. them” mentality, and the push to control people’s lives.

              Is that a result of a rightward swing?

            • Quite Rightly 10:55 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

              Yukio–Sometimes it is “us versus them,” and I vote for us.

              I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam? Yeah, everyone else just decided life as a Muslim is so much fun.

              I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.

              And about that “control” thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.

              Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine that you are wearing a burqa and a face veil and sitting in the back of the mosque. What’s your life like now?

              • Yukio Ngaby 11:14 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

                You wrote: “Yukio–Sometimes it is ‘us versus them,’ and I vote for us.”

                Sometimes. But not now– not by a long shot. And I see no reason to make it so now.

                You wrote: “I’m not the only one who has noticed that Islam is in continual war with every group that is non-Islamic and always has been. Or what is it that happened to all the non-Islamic populations of the Middle East that pre-existed Islam?”

                Are you talking about the pagans circa 400AD that pre-existed Islam? You’re going to go back 1600 years? What about the Mayans and Aztecs that pre-existed Christianity in the Americas? Proof of Christian imperialism? Really?

                You wrote: “I was minding my own business on 9/11, but somebody else declared war on me and my family, friends, associates, and countrymen. Just because every single member of the group that declared war on us isn’t an active combatant doesn’t mean that the group as a whole is not dangerous. Every single citizen of Germany wasn’t in uniform, but that didn’t make Germany a non-threat.”

                WWII didn’t start because a group of Nazis blew up a building. Do you really want to declare war against 1.57 billion people (including millions of American citizens) because a dozen or so radical Muslims committed mass murder?

                You wrote: “And about that ‘control’ thing. As I’ve told you before, I think you’d seriously rethink who believes they should force control over other people’s lives if you spent some time as a female around Muslim men. I have, and it ain’t pretty.”

                You’re right. It’s not.

                But the pragmatic question is what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? Especially when it’s happening in another country? Declare war? Force them to behave in ways that you agree?

                If you think reformation can come from attacking their religion, then we’ll have to kill many, many people to accomplish this. Are you advocating this course?

                • Quite Rightly 10:35 PM on 12/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

                  Yukio – Your definition of push back and mine are quite different, it seems. Maybe environment has something to do with it. I live in a Progressive paradise where people go out of their way to brag that they know “a Syrian” or “an Iraqi,” always stressing “what wonderful people” they are, as though knowing a Syrian or an Iraqi qualifies them for a Progressive Medal of Honor for exquisitely PC tolerance. I have heard people return from a Muslim country and the “endearing trait” of the villagers to lie to them. Immediately following 9/11, our family doctor grandly embellished the wall of his waiting room with a large poster of a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil with a gorgeous little baby girl perched on her knee to show the peasantry where his real loyalties stood. My email box was filled with frantic missives worrying that there might be “push back” on Muslims. One guy took to wearing a “sympathy turban” around town to ostentatiously demonstrate his support for supposedly threatened Muslims. I guess he wasn’t waiting to find out whether or not his family members, friends, and associates had survived 9/11. One woman told me that having an apartment overlooking the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center (as happened to a young friend of mine) was “not at all traumatic.” On Sept. 11, 2001, my bookseller sent a letter to the NY Times placing blame for 9/11 on the U.S. as a “rogue nation.” Got it published, too. Even to this day, at Thanksgiving, when it’s 30 degrees outside in rural New York and families are eating roast turkey, mashed potatoes, and hot apple pie, a young woman shows her “open-mindedness” by gracing the table with an “Islamic” dish meant to be eaten in an sub-Saharan desert during a holiday she never heard of, never mind celebrated. Etc., etc., etc., etc. etc. Talk about snooty, self-serving, PC “redeemers”. Ugh.

                  Now, I don’t propose making war on every Muslim that I run into; in fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve never said even one rude word to a Muslim, which is a great deal more courtesy than some Muslims have shown me. But I definitely am not quietly caving in to politically organized Muslim demands–particularly the demands of foreign Muslims or those funded by foreign Muslims (known Hamas co-conspirators), nor am I willing to support the politically expedient notion that Muslims, by virtue of their very existence, should be handed the keys to the city, the school system, NASA, Ground Zero, and/or Justice Department because I am happy no subscriber to their ideology/ideologies has killed me today. I am not in the business of handing out free passes to enslave children, hold open season on Jews, Christians, and Sikhs, or import any brand of Shariah law into our country as some kind of faux First Amendment right.

                  My freedoms are mine and earned for me by people who sacrificed blood, treasure, and lives, and I’m not giving up those freedoms to make anybody happy. Education is a good place to start. The romantic ideal of PC tolerance for any ideology that rolls down the pike doesn’t stand up to the sobering reality of the Islamic missionary world view, which is so stern that Muslima fruit pickers feel compelled to turn in one of their neighbors for capital punishment because she doesn’t subscribe to their religion and resists the insult of being told that she can’t drink from the same water bucket, just because she is one of the last remaining Christians in their country. Islam is not Christianity, with a set of Commandments lending a relatively peaceful and charitable structure to a society, and that’s obvious. We have plenty of legal means to preserve our cultures in and out of courts; we don’t need to cooperate and we can resist both inside and outside of courts; and, as an obvious step, many European countries are tightening up their immigration policies; too late for them, but we might get away with closing the barn door in time.

                  • backyardconservative 10:18 AM on 12/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    Sobering reality all right. Well said.

                  • Yukio Ngaby 5:19 PM on 12/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    QR, don’t take this the wrong way. I like you. I know you to be kind and good-hearted person, and I respect the things you have written on your blog.

                    Despite the fact this comment is addressed to me, you’re not talking to me, nor are you addressing anything that I’ve said. Who are you talking too?

                    Exactly when did I advocate child slavery (a real prevalent problem in the US?), hunting Christians and Jews, having NASA engage in Muslim outreach (which I blogged about NASA’s idiocy), etc.? You are assigning to me values that I do not believe in and views which I have not espoused.

                    Perhaps it is time for this line of debate to be ended, and we shall simply agree to disagree.

                    • Quite Rightly 9:38 PM on 12/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

                      Yukio — Over on her Web site, Fuzzy has posted a wonderful Faulkner quote: “I never know what I think about something until I read what I’ve written about it.” And so it is for me.

                      I was attempting to answer the pragmatic question that you posed: “What am I going to do about it? What can I do about it? “It” being, in my mind, the ideology that leads to cultural acceptance of child slavery, slaughtering of non-Muslims, etc.

                      My experiences with Islam overall have been not at all like the romantic image that my (former) doctor wished his patients to accept: Islam as a beautiful Muslima in a pink gauzy veil dandling a gorgeous child on her knee. That fact is not a reflection on you. That’s a reflection on Islam.

                      I can’t say it any more mildly than that.

      • backyardconservative 10:26 AM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        It does seem like this food offering was a political statement. From a guest.

        • fuzislippers 7:31 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          It was and that makes it both rude and insulting. What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality. Except THIS is our country, our home. I’m so done with the PC crap. I’m a white, female Christian American, and I am not going to be “fundamentally transformed.”

          • Maia 12:30 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

            “What is wrong with people? Why is it so hard to understand that we have a religion, a cultural heritage that we not only enjoy but consider just as integral to the fabric of our lives and traditions as those of any other religion and nationality.”

            See, in this statement lies the problem. Not that you want space for your cultural traditions (which is absolutely reasonable and fair), but that YOU FEEL ENTITLED TO DEFINE WHO “WE” ARE and what “our” culture is.

            In what reality is the U.S. not a nation of immigrants, from MANY faiths? In what reality are American cultural traditions NOT a mish-mash of things from other cultures and things uniquely local? In what reality are American cultural traditions uniform across the U.S.?

            These things are the problem- that white, Christian U.S. Americans (both male and female) feel entitled to control the definition of who “we” are….
            Because WE’RE NOT ALL LIKE YOU.

            • fuzislippers 8:55 PM on 12/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

              I am entitled to define who “we” are, Maia, because it’s based in our nation’s long history and who we are on this blog. America is a Christian nation, we have traditions and culture, and these are not difficult to find or define. What is “American” is actually quite clear and easy to define. It certainly doesn’t exclude people of all races and faiths, but it does and always has required that people who emigrate here become a part of America. Not the other way around. Now, WE, the people, are being told that we can’t practice our faith freely, that we must hide our religious practices, that we must, in essence, deny who WE, the people, are to make room for a few who don’t like America and who wish to change her. That includes not only our traditional recognition of the Judeo-Christian faith and religion but also the very principles of limited government and the free market on which this nation is based. If you are not like WE, the people, and you do not value America, her traditions and culture, then that’s your choice, but it does not change what America is, nor who the American people are. BO is fond of spouting off about how HE defines America and the American people, and he’s dead wrong. So are you.

        • Quite Rightly 7:40 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I’m giving her a pass on this one. In our area, it’s not easy finding someone who hasn’t swallowed the Prog bait–hook, line, and sinker. I get to hear whatever the Libs are telling each other because they can’t imagine that anyone disagrees with them. It does get to be funny when you ask for citations so you can “read more about it.” I seldom encounter a Prog that can offer a source other than “I heard it from so and so.”

    • tennismom 6:04 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Multi culti recipes, no problem. Anti-Christian rhetoric in front of children is another matter. One of my Thanksgiving guests, a liberal man around fifty, whom I’ve known for fourteen years, led the conversation in the direction of bashing Christians for proselytizing. On a holiday, with six children/young adults at the table, I didn’t think this was appropriate. I was already a bit upset because everyone started eating while I was out of the room, and THERE WAS NO PRAYER. When I said to my guest that I found the subject offensive, he didn’t apologize and change the subject, as I expected he would, but argued back at me that he was just making fun of ‘proselytizing’. I suppose I should have pointed out that he was in effect proselytizing for secularism. Instead, I left the room, and the conversation (as I overheard) went on in the same vein for several minutes, making fun of Christians and conservatives for being racist and anti-gay and praising liberals for being tolerant and sophisticated. I said nothing further to criticize the man or his wife, and I sent them home with two pies and a bunch of other stuff. My family’s reaction was, ‘Mom, you shouldn’t have said anything.’ What do you think?

      • fuzislippers 7:36 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I think that he was incredibly rude and disgraceful. Liberals do tend to have no manners at all at times. He was in your home, no? Inexcusable. In my current It’s Time To Push Back and Defend Our Values mode, I probably would have asked for a word in the kitchen and requested that he respect my home, my children, and my values while he was dining at my Thanksgiving table. If he chose not to, I’d be A-OK with him leaving. With some pies, of course. :)

      • Quite Rightly 10:25 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        tennismom- This is a difficult one because you want to be hospitable, especially at Thanksgiving. I think it’s okay to interrupt the meal for the grace, which can be done with a light hand and–to save embarrassment–a white lie about everyone’s thoughtfulness to wait for the prayer until you could be present.

        The bombardment of Christians for proselytizing is something I haven’t learned to confront successfully. I like your idea of noting that your guest was proselytizing for secularism. I think I’ll try it next time. Since you’ve known this guy for 14 years, you’ll probably have another opportunity to point that out, at a time more convenient for you.

    • Jill 7:19 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Sounds like you took a stand, appropriately, then took the high road when he didn’t take the hint.

      • fuzislippers 7:39 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Taking the high road is what got us into this mess. We can push back without being unChristian or abandoning good manners, there’s no need to sink to levels of rudeness, but I think it’s important that we stand firm against the onslaught and attacks on our American Christian values.

        • Quite Rightly 7:45 PM on 12/02/2010 Permalink | Reply

          I so agree with you, Fuz, but I do have trouble being “as wise as a serpent,” if you know what I mean. I just start gagging. The assumptions that are accepted as absolute, irrefutable, obvious truth out there are just staggering. The other day I took the time to have a conversation with an earnest young “scholar” about what he is certain is the “superior” state of medical care in Cuba.

  • Mary Sue 9:56 AM on 10/30/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , liberals   

    From the “how’s that working out for you” files: Halloween edition 

    I was looking for a few ideas for a Halloween post and I happened upon  this post, “Best Political Halloween Costume.” The post was old, dating way back back to the days before the country elected Barack Obama president. *Sigh* Hope and change fever was still rampant, which led to the creation of a simple costume that looked like this:

    Which brings me to a pertinent question:



    Hmm, which of Obama’s incredible economic policies made Halloween, or anything for that matter, more affordable?  Maybe this guy got one of those magical shovel-ready jobs.


    Assuming few of us are reaping the benefits of Obamanomics, here is a simple solution for those who still can’t afford a Halloween costume.  Follow the instructions provided by creator of the above-pictured masterpiece and create your own political t-shirt/costume:

    Photoshop + Printer + Wilton t shirt iron-on paper = political message


    See you at the big party in West Hollywood! Happy Halloween!


    A quickie cell phone shot of the shirt in action, which already got me some dirty looks from the old white people at CostCo. Seriously, people. Ease up with the racism!

    Wow, had that racism thing ready to go didn’t he?  Notice too, the faulty liberal math at work here.  Since when do Photoshop + printer + Wilton t-shirt iron-on paper add up to a political message.  Shouldn’t the equation read Photoshop + printer + Wilton t-shirt iron-on paper + catchy political message = clever Halloween costume?  Silly Progressives!


    There is a Halloween challenge brewing somewhere in here, I fear.  Feel free to leave your “catchy political message” in the comments if you are so inspired.  The winner gets an all expenses paid trip to 7-11; the Slurpee is on me.


    Happy Halloween

    cross posted at Ruby Slippers

    UPDATE: Related from the “Restore the Sanity” Rally

    Rally summarized in a single photo

    • fuzislippers 10:15 AM on 10/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I’m not good at catchy slogans, but do you remember those Cindy Crawfordesque press-on moles? How about a fly-shaped one, stick it on your lip, and go as BO? A plastic fly is about all anyone can afford now, anyway.

      • rubyslipperblog 1:38 PM on 10/30/2010 Permalink | Reply

        That’s great, then if people don’t get the costume you could do some serious Jedi maneuver and squash the fly. This is particularly impressive in a room full of libs.

  • Jill 8:20 PM on 10/23/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , liberals   

    Today’s must-read 

    PJ O’Rourke:

    This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order.

    Read the whole thing.

  • backyardconservative 7:18 PM on 07/15/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: liberals,   

    Collective Score Blanketball and Other Nightmares 

    Living like a liberal. Let them count the ways.

    Some conservative apres-beach reading from Matt Labash, The Weekly Standard

    I especially enjoy the Parenting Liberally part, naturally. Sounds like he has cute kids in spite of the modern liberal torture he is putting them through.

    More living like a liberal news, alternative reality version, via Ace: Sheila Jackson-Lee: I’m So Glad That We Won In Vietnam And That Both Vietnams, North and South, Live Together In Peace Side-By-Side

    I guess we can all get along if we let a few things slide. Like History. Geography. Culture.

    The country.

    P.S. More on Jackson-Lee from Moonbattery.

  • Sherry 3:03 PM on 07/02/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , liberals,   

    Krugman Koolade 

    The Democratically controlled Congress has deemed as passed a 1.12 Trillion dollar budget with no budget attached for 2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37893 and Paul Krugman has explained that the only reason we’re not awash in good fortune is the idiots who have bought into the idea that trippling the debt in 18 months is somehow a bad thing are not investing.

    No really.

    He even calls it the Myth of Austerity.  And I thought all those struggling with jobs or finding their costs of living going up or feeling anxious about the future and taxes and our prosperity was based on facts like the looming tax hikes, the ever-increasing entitlements and debt and ever-increasing size of local, state and federal government.  It was all just in my silly woman’s head. 


    Apparently because we don’t believe Krugman’s theories or Keynesian economics, we’re all just stupid lemmings not to believe that priming the pump a’la  stimulus bills will bring about a recovery, (the fact that it hasn’t is a mere detail).  Given my apparent ignorance, I have to ask this simple question of true believers.  

    At what point will the government have spent enough money to have us arrive at Utopia?  At what point will the primed pump gush forth its bounty the way oil is currently surging into the gulf?   At what point will you be able to tell us, “See.  See!  And You thought we were headed towards bankruptcy and massive inflation and ever spiraling worse debt!” 

    What are the markers, the indicators of your success?  When will they show up?  Why will they show up?  At the moment, all I see is you scolding us for not believing because in our own simple hum drum lives if we spend three times what we make, we eventually have those bills come due and we wind up in huge trouble.  Do you live your lives this way, floating massive debt and having economic growth as a result?   Show me the money.

    Show me the country, the past studies, the past history where this worked, on a micro scale, a macro scale, any scale other than the world of theory that this would all work if only…the government spent more…if only this had not happened…if only the states had done this…if only the businesses had believed in Tinkerbell just a little bit more.   Show me when Keynesian theory has worked and why.  Show me why you have such blind faith in these theories when the people whose business it is to make money and make money for other people, have no such trust in these scenarios: i.e. the investment class that you declare evil because they are unbelievers.  

    This type of thinking by the existing congress, existing administration, existing elite economic theorists who write for the New York Times maintains, we just haven’t done enough.   So I ask, what is the number, the magic number at which you must declare that maybe, perhaps, this theory is just that, and not actual economic reality or do you have a number at which you would be willing to consider that possibly, real dollars and cents don’t work the way theoretical ones do.   

    Spouting the only thing still tax free, my own two cents.

  • pjMom 10:36 AM on 06/29/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: liberals   

    Why liberals make dangerous friends 

    They might urge you to “suck it up” for the greater good.

    The massage therapist sexually harassed by the Nobel prize-winning hack former VP who invented the internet confided in friends after the assault:

    Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her “to just suck it up; otherwise, the world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.”

    Good grief.  I hope she recovered from the incident and was smart enough to find new friends to boot.  Speaking of urges, if you’re intrigued enough about Al pleading for the release of his “second chakra” (oh GAG me to have even written that), read Byron York’s detailed account at the Examiner.  Gore’s silence adds to the credibility, as does the level of detail from this woman’s police interviews–you don’t dream up … chakras. (Shudder). 

    Also tabbed: this from Instapundit, a long-time Gore fan and sex crime expert.  As she wrings her liberal hands and bemoans, “Why now?”

    I’m as fierce an advocate as exists for crime victims, but I’m having a tough time figuring out how to feel about Al Gore being publicly accused now of committing a sexual assault in 2006.

    It’s not that he didn’t seem the “type.” After the Catholic priest scandal, I gave up thinking there was a man alive who wasn’t capable, though if Jimmy Carter gets in the same trouble I will lose my lunch.

    Why, why must you bring up priests?  Oh, because the cult of AGW really is a religion!

    But the go-green halo around Gore’s presence set him apart somehow. Not that being an environmentalist makes a guy a saint, but Gore seemed almost desperate to have us see him as more moral than the average Al.

    I asked a bunch of women in my community how they felt about the Al Gore news, and they said perplexing victim-blaming things such as “She was in her 50s. Doesn’t he know menopausal women aren’t horny?” And, “How did she not know that a request for a three-hour massage at 10:30 p.m. is code for ‘the guy wants a hooker?” A couple of women cracked jokes: “After she rejected him, did he Tip-per?”

    The greenest of the green people I talked to felt betrayed. Gore was their leader and the movement is now, um, stained. The woman even said, according to the transcript of her interview with Portland, Ore., police made public on the Internet, that her “Birkenstock Tribe” friends told her to “suck it up” and not tell anyone or the “world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.”

    That’s right, suck it up after being sexually assaulted by a “crazed sex poodle.”  What fabulous friends. 

     Cross-posted at pjMom.

    • Jill 12:51 PM on 06/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      That police report makes fascinating reading.

    • pjMom 2:10 PM on 06/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Doesn’t it, though. Cringe-worthy, but fascinating, especially given the ego involved.

  • Sherry 4:48 PM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , liberals, , , Utter Insanity   

    Let’s Be China for a Day 

    Between Tom Friedman and Woody Allen, what’s all this love for Dictatorships?   Tom talked about wanting us to be China for a day so we can get the right things done.  


    I have to ask; what would those things that one could do in just one day of pure dictatorship be?  I don’t know what Tom had in mind but the following are what I might imagine.

    1) Imprison all affiliated conservative or right-wing media and the people and corporations who openly support them and Republican or conservative politicians without a trial or lawyers indefinitely.

    2) Censor all media except that which exalts the state which may simply involve #1.

    3) Transform all churches into hospitals or schools or state offices; and outlaw religion.

    4) Mandate abortions for all and require the one child limit from this point forward. 

    5) Remove excess property from all considered to be unfairly advantaged and improperly politically connected.

    6) Monitor all communications and transactions and associations and eliminate all individual rights for the masses.

    7) Make Congress and all legislation a mere formality of symbolic nature

    8) Suspend actual elections.

    9) Impose martial law and dissolve all States into the Federal Government.

    10) Bring tanks to tea parties. 

    Those are a few of the things one could do if one was China for the day that China would do if China was us. 

    But I assume Tom is a nice guy so, I’d like some clarification; what is the good part of a dictatorship that every socialist utopia is supposed to have and none of them do that Tom wants so desperately that he dreams of it?   

    And what makes him so sure that those in power, once they had the power to make things happen, whether the banning of plastic bags (which would make taking out the garbage very difficult)  or mandating everyone clean up after their dogs, (which would also be very difficult without plastic grocery bags), would be content with 24 hours? 

    I’m pretty sure once they had a day, they’d want a little more time, a week, a month, a five year plan.  You know, just to make sure what they decided would stick.  I’m sure Tom wouldn’t object after all, it would be for the greater good.

    • Yukoi Ngaby 6:22 PM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply

      You forgot a few other things they could do, assuming it’s just for the day.

      1) freely seize private property and people’s homes for the building of roads, etc. (but don’t worry they get special interest loans [seems to never work out] and Quonset huts to replace their house)… and you thought eminent domain was bad.

      2) Unleash the OFA and their “super-hero karate chops” on the public a la the Red Brigade… Confess!

      3) While they’re out there, the OFA and Coffee Party could begin to weed out objectionable movies, TV shows, books, web sites, blogs, newspapers, etc. by imprisoning and torturing the producers/writers/stars/journalists until they denounce their politically heretical stances. Soon we’ll only have cheesy musicals glorifying our precious Revolution… er our Collective Will!

      4) Invade neighboring countries.

      5) Eliminate most expensive safety standards and equipment for coal miners.

      6) Begin building cheap cars and trucks so epically far below the current American safety standards that when they crash into a wall, their rear axle ends up under the driver’s seat.

      This doesn’t even include the killing of millions from Mao’s Great Leap Forward. I figure that would take more than just a day…

    • Quite Rightly 1:55 PM on 05/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Media proponents of “short-term” dictatorships, in my view, have stuck wet fingers in the air and determined which way the wind is blowing.

  • backyardconservative 2:13 PM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , liberals   

    The Reality Rubber Hits the Road in a Sanctuary State 

    Illegal injures state rep in Mass, laughs that ‘nothing is going to happen to me’

    Talk about a liberal mugged by reality–I guess we’ll see what his stance his. We wish him a swift recovery.

    Other Arizona links:

    ‘Shameful’: Rep. Kennedy Likens Arizona Law to ‘Slave Trade’

    Crowd Boos Commencement Speaker Who Criticized Arizona Law

    And Andrew McCarthy, NRO, The House Divided.

    P.S. I see Nice Deb was on the case too. Bread Upon the Waters bigtime.

    …Chicago is a sanctuary city, Illinois de facto. We haven’t seen too much Arizona-bashing except for the liberal Highland Park school district, perhaps because people remember the subtext of the trial of our last impeached governor. A big family died in a fireball on the highway with only the parents able to free themselves. The cause–a driver with a license bought illegally. He couldn’t understand English when other truckers were trying to tell him he had a heavy part dangling dangerously from the rear of his truck.

  • Jill 6:16 PM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , liberals   

    Congress sides with Calderon, against Arizona 

    You’ve got to wonder if there’s a limit to how far they’ll go with this kind of thing:

    Dems stand and cheer as Calderon bashes Arizona law

    • fuzislippers 6:23 PM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

      This is so far beyond the pale. How on earth do these people sit there while a foreign leader tells them that our police, our state legislators, and our people are racists? I do not understand how anyone can sit there, let alone jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. What happened to dignity, respect, patriotism? The only enemies of the progressives in our government (i.e. our government) are the people of this country. That’s a huge problem.

      And now they want to revoke terrorists’ citizenship? Who do you think this administration thinks is a terrorist? Who do they all say are the “real” threats to this country, its security, to “democracy”? We’re on a dangerous dangerous path, and I am deeply concerned by these America- hating people who side with foreign leaders over the people of their own country.

      • Obi's Sister 6:30 PM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

        The Georgia Primary is July 20. I can’t wait.

      • Yukio Ngaby 6:31 PM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

        The Democrats are looking for votes. They know that their going to take a beating in Nov., but feel that they can mitigate the damage by capturing the Hispanic vote.

        I don’t think that’s all that’s going on, but it’s a factor.

    • Yukio Ngaby 8:47 PM on 05/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Rep. McClintock had a pretty decent response to Calderon and the Dems.

      Video found here: http://www.dittos-rush.com/2010/05/response-to-president-calderon-by-rep.html

  • Sherry 6:07 PM on 05/18/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: liberals, ,   

    Ha Ha! Now We Can Talk About… 

    This is what qualifies as intellectual heft. I don’t hear the right getting their undies in a wad about Kagan’s proclivities but have a “Devout” Catholic on the Court and even though he’s been there since Reagan, that’s something to talk about and you know it’s just scary.


    Asking is this normal for the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to have nine children? Mind you, he’s been on the court since 1986 but hey, it’s hilarious to point at the man who sits on the highest court and laugh at him and his wife for their personal witness of their faith.

    If you google Antonin Scalia, you’ll find chortles from the left over the examining of he and his wife having 9 children…because such a thing makes him unfathomable to those who wish to mock a justice for his faith and family to advance their own agendas. Nice tolerance folks. Way to make us see that gosh, we should all love you for all your open-mindedness and higher understanding of what’s what.

    Having 9 of my own, I can tell you, you are always hearing opening and closing arguments. You must sift through countless renditions of life to hear something of what actually happened and you have to trust your own judgement sufficiently to apply your values as you render a verdict.

    But giggle giggle giggle, “it’s not normal.” Reading the responses felt like hearing twittering adolescents on a party line.

    Seeing as there are only 9 in total at any time, the Supreme Court is not a Photoshop of America, it’s supposed to be the highest court with the finest minds; or doesn’t that teaching at the University of Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law Degree that he has count for something?

    Oh, I forgot, all academic weight is negated by the moniker Conservative and those 9 kids according to the Liberal Handbook for allowing people to hold positions of power.  Must remember to pick one of those manifestos up….

    • backyardconservative 7:28 PM on 05/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Who is more in touch? Scalia or MIchael Kinsley. Or Elena ivory tower Kagan for that matter.

      Is Kinsley trying to change the subject from those on his own side who want to “out” Kagan for political reasons. Whether she’s gay or not. Like Andrew Sullivan, who will, I’m sure, soon go back to attacking Sarah Palin’s Trig-hahaha how hilarious.

    • LarryD 8:25 PM on 05/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I’m not sure of the ages of his kids, but just wait until they’re all eligible to vote…and then when they start having kids….stupid liberals are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence. And they want everyone else to do the same.

      • Jill 5:30 AM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Michael Kinsley is a contemptible weasel for inviting these kinds of comments.

        • Sherry 9:35 AM on 05/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

          That is what my problem is; it may have been Satire to illustrate the stupidity of discussing Kagan’s sexuality when what matters is her capacity as a judicial candidate but it subjected people (Scalia’s wife and children) to unnecessary and ugly scorn and vitriol as a means of proving what point exactly? I know. My ox gored too, but if you’re not going to get mad when your ox is gored, when exactly should you get upset?

  • Quite Rightly 9:33 AM on 04/29/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , liberals   

    San Francisco’s Attempts to Punish Arizona Might Backfire 

    Because San Francisco’s political leaders view federal immigration law as “discriminatory,” they have decided to punish the state of Arizona for its failure to succeed in providing “sanctuary” to the millions crossing its borders from Mexico, including warring drug thugs who have taken over entire neighborhoods and turned Arizona into a world kidnapping capital.

    Fox News is reporting that Mayor Gavin Newsom has already banned city workers from all non-essential travel to Arizona, and San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors are planning to boycott Arizona economically. Others want to cancel collegiate and professional sports events, like the Superbowl.

    One question remains: Will San Francisco be willing to pay the price for its self-appointed claim on moral superiority? In one case, according to city spokeman, Tony Winnicker, if San Francisco cancels its business with an Arizona company that helps them run the city’s Jobs Now program, “we could be looking at a situation where 2,500 San Franciscans would lose their jobs.”

    What? San Francisco workers could lose jobs in their attempt to kill the jobs of people in Arizona?

    And what would happen if Arizona retaliated? As one San Francisco restauranteur confessed:

    Would Arizona and other states that are more conservative than San Francisco retaliate, and stop sending conventions to San Francisco? Certainly, in a recession, we don’t want any retaliation.

    What’s the matter,  San Francisco? You can dish it out, but you just can’t take it?

    Update: And then there’s this, which I just found over at Shout First, Ask Questions Later:

    But if CA decides to go through with it, then perhaps Arizona can express its outrage at California impinging upon Arizona’s right to self-governance by dialing back the taps to the energy and water supplies southern California depends on.

    Update: Professor Jacobson is finding the whole boycott thing confusing.

    Cross-posted at Bread upon the Waters.

  • backyardconservative 12:06 PM on 04/20/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , liberals   

    Feminist Un-happy Hours 

    More boring world equality talk, this time on “Equal Pay Day”. If only men wouldn’t die sooner than we do, or take riskier jobs as a group, we women might have a chance. Christina Hoff Summers bravely enters the fray to put this perennial liberal beating of that dead horse out of its misery. I have to say, these women sound pretty miserable:

    The American Association of University Women (AAUW) has enlisted supporters to wear red “to represent the way the pay gap puts women ‘in the red.’” There will be rallies, speak outs, mass mailings of equity e-cards, and even bake sales featuring cookies with a “bite” taken out to represent women’s losses to men. The National Organization for Women (NOW) suggests women gather together at local bars for “Un-happy Hours” where they can share their dissatisfactions. “See if a local bar, club, or restaurant (try the women-owned ones first!) will give you drink specials [where] women pay 78% of their tabs and men pay 100%.”

    Un-happy hours. Really catchy. I’m sure women bar owners especially appreciate the suggestion.

    HT The Corner.

  • Jill 7:33 PM on 04/19/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: liberals,   


    Absolutely nuts: Joe Klein forfeits his last shred of credibility. Video, and Allahpundit’s perfect analysis, here.

    • fuzislippers 8:50 PM on 04/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Some of the comments over there are really great. One of my faves: does he mean sedition-sedition?

    • Obi's Sister 7:05 AM on 04/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

      You are too kind to Joe. I thought he’d lost that last shred during the election.

      • Sherry 7:43 AM on 04/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Joe Klein had credibility? Are you sure?

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc