Much wailing, wringing of hands, and rending of clothes by the special interest media and the left in general today as Arizona has picked up and run with the illegal immigration ball our federal government has dro... nay refused to even heft. Much of the hubbub among the scourges of our national integrity has been predicated on a lie that is typified as follows in WaPo...
As an immigration bill that nationally embarrasses Arizona becomes bad law, our best hope in my hometown is that the rest of America doesn't do to Arizona what Senate Bill 1070 requires our police officers to do to people with brown skin: "profile" them based on stereotypes and insufficient information.
Bullshit! All one has to do is read the law to know better. I did, and frankly I'm mystified how they came to that opinion... nah, nah, nah, just joking. Obviously the special interest media fabulists didn't come to that opinion by reading the fucking law, instead they did what they always do, they read each other. The law says as follows:
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. WITHOUT A WARRANT. MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
How in the name of Pablo Escobar is a lawman compelled by those words "to do to people with brown skin: "profile" them based on stereotypes and insufficient information"? The answer friends is axiomatic, those parameters come from the leftist psyche and their media echo-chamber. UPDATE: 5/14/10
Well you can't really join the Tea Party, cause it isn't a political party per se, which is a really good thing because: A) I dislike political parties B) If the Tea Party did indeed become a political party it would disunify believers in limited government to the extent it would guarantee more demokrat leftist tyranny, and... C) I'm not much of a joiner.
Perhaps some of you in my fantastical readership will have noticed a more strident tone to my entries since I've returned to blogging. The spelling of demokrat in the Germanic fashion for instance. This comes as a natural reaction to the rapidly gathering clouds of leftist oppression I've been watching o'er the last several months, and a desire to cast my genteel conservative instincts aside and fight fire with fire, hammer and tongs for our liberty against the pinko totalitarian rabble.
To that end I will be compiling a new lexicon to more accurately describe our foe. For my second entry into that lexicon (right behind demokrat) I shall hereon refer to the elite popular media, (old media if will) as the special interest media, the reason for that should be obvious.
Just caught part of Becks show wherein Al Sharpton was guest; it was pathetic. Why give that race-hustling fuck air time if you aren't prepared to demonstrate what a miserable piece of shit he is?
Hope Beck can avoid jumping the shark till after November.
Wow, just wow. Whether it's for Smith's obsequiousness, or Obama's galling mendacity, this crap deserves a little parsing:
SMITH: I've been spending time out and about listening to talk radio. The kindest of terms you're sometimes referred to out in America is a socialist. The worst of which I've heard is called a Nazi. Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made their daily conversation about you?
Does anyone who actually listens to talk radio believe for one second that Harry's telling the truth? I've heard Obama referred to as a fascist or a socialist both of which by varying definitions are true, but Nazi? Never. Nor for that matter have I heard any real enmity from the hosts of these various broadcasts. Sure you'll hear some hate from the occasional caller but usually that is directed at the hosts, the haters being deranged lefties.
OBAMA: When you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck --
SMITH: It's beyond that.
OBAMA: It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome. But keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling as if there's a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans...
True, the "vast majority" of American's have their heads up their asses. But what's not true is the vitriol aimed at the President is any greater now than it was during the last administration when the economy was going gangbusters. In fact, I'd say "(that) kind of vitriol" was much greater then. Also, if Obama is to be believed about the feelings folks harbor for change, then obviously Obama isn't giving them the change they'd hoped for.
...The truth is some of these comments when you actually ask well, this is based on what this notion that Obama is a socialist for example nobody can really (laughs) give a good answer...
Bullshit. For anyone whose paid any attention to Obama's past the question to ask is when did Obama become anything other than a socialist? I've found no evidence that he's come to any other realization than that dictated by being marinated in leftist radicalism since birth.
...much less when they...
SMITH: Right
OBAMA: you know make...
SMITH: They would say mandating that people have to buy health insurance or something like that
OBAMA: the uh, uh, sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee mitt Romney
SMITH: (nodding)
Okay, besides this being a total tu quoque fallacy, if one bothers to recall Obama's druthers, he didn't want the sort of health care reform Harry and he are suggesting. Obama wanted a (so called) single payer plan, that's what everyone used to call socialized medicine; not that the Obama regimes Trojan Horse isn't close enough.
Obama: Yeah, so it doesn't make too much sense...
(CBS edit)
...it used to be that somebody who said something crazy they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial...
So folks who criticize Obama for his well documented socialist pedigree, or whenever his Chicago cum Chavez style totalitarian predilections materialize are crazy? That's called demonization, keep that in mind when Obama says the following...
(CBS edit)
SMITH: Very last question does it bother you a little bit?
OBAMA: Uh you know I eh you end up getting a pretty thick skin on this job, and obviously when you've gone through a presidential campaign there are a lot of things said that thicken your skin. Um I, I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized. I'm concerned about it when Democrats do it,
My ass
I'm concerned about it when Republicans do it, I do think that there is a tone, and tenor, that needs to change, where we can disagree without being disagreeable, or making wild accusations about the other side, uh and I think that's what most Americans would like to see as well.
What this American would like to see is less sanctimony and more truth from this asshole, and the truth is the public discourse is no harsher then it has ever been, tyrants just can't abide criticism.
I said most Americans have their heads up the their asses, but not so far that they are deaf to certain easily identifiable concepts to which they are viscerally anathematic, one of these is the term socialist. That's why Obama and his minions dare not identify with the name they would otherwise embrace. The fact that their regime is so replete with agendas and aspects that are easily identifiable as socialist, or totalitarian, have given substance to the term it wouldn't have as a mere pejorative when aimed at less radical administrations. These identifiers are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of public record. Next time you see Chris Matthews, Bob Beckel, or any one of a number of the Dear Leaders panjandrums, commisars, thugs, toadies, or boot-lickers, raging cause he and his regime are being identified as socialists, be mindful of the 411.
I've never responded to a letter to the editor, but for some reason the libelous little humbug titled Republicans in yesterdays Honolulu Advertiser has gotten under my skin.
I don't know if it's the writers blind and incurious acceptance of the narrative which has reverberated in the leftist echo chamber since Paul Krugman penned this smug bit of sophistry in last Thursdays NY Times, or the Advertiser's lack of judgment in publishing the letter writers lies. Whatever it is my response will probably not make it to the Advertiser's letters section, and if by some miracle it does will most likely be incomprehensible due to lack of context and the constraints of the Advertiser's character limit which caused me to eviscerate my original response.
At any rate, I offer my original letter here in context with that of the liberal pea-brain from Lahaina as the cartharsis I will doubtlessly not receive from 'Hawai'i's complete source'
The Offending Letter:
Republicans
Palin is accessory to acts of violence
On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin stated we need to "reload," and "take aim" at a list of Democrats after the health care bill was passed. Then she put cross hairs on Democratic candidates.
As a result, law enforcement authorities investigated the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother.
A tea party organizer published what he thought was the freshman member's home address on a blog, in case any readers "want to drop by" and provide a "personal touch" to their views.
Republicans like Palin are becoming an accessory to the unlawful actions against Democrats.
An accessory charge is a for person who, though not present during the commission of a felony, is guilty of having aided and abetted another, who committed the felony.
If Sarah Palin didn't mean to encourage unlawful behavior then she would have come out and apologized for not being impeccable with her word — but she didn't.
Sarah Palin should be prosecuted on accessory charges to any crime directed toward the list of Democrats she laid out with cross hairs. This Republican strategy is deeply disturbing! Justin Hughley Lahaina, Maui
My Response:
I'm wondering who Justin Hughley is quoting in his March, 30th letter condemning Sarah Palin, Tea Partiers, and Republicans, but whoever it is, it 's definitely not Palin.
A simple visit to the Facebook entry in question belies the writers assertions. There was indeed a placement of cross hairs in that entry, but they were not "on Democratic candidates" as the writer describes, but rather on a map of Congressional districts where as Mrs. Palin writes:
"We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington."
It is therefore difficult to understand Mr. Hughley's contention that the cutting of a gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother occurred "as a result", especially since the act took place before Palin's blog entry
By the writer's logic it's not difficult to imagine who might be liable for accessory charges in last week's throwing of bricks through GOP office windows in Charlottesville, or the firing of bullets through Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-Va) Richmond office window, and the on-line death threats made to Cantor and his family by the alleged shooter.
Needless to say if I'd had the space I could go on to admonish Mr. Hughley about his ignorance of the law, his typical leftist intolerance of free speech, or that demokrats have manufactured this issue to avoid an argument of their insidious health care bill which they can't win on merit. But what I'd really like to do here is call attention to this blog post on Verum Serum (hat tip to Daniel Foster at NRO's The Corner) which should cause Paul Krugman to eat his words.
In what little I know of these sorts of investigations the investigating authorities often spend months, years even following these conspiracies in order to amass a wealth of charges so that incarceration of the guilty parties is certain. What have we here, five charges? The offenders arrested on the pretext that they were about to commit a reconnaissance? Why is interrupting a mere reconnaissance reasonable grounds for terminating an investigation? From what I've read investigators like to observe these kinds of things while building their case. Firearms possession illegal? Teaching explosives making illegal? When did homemade bombs all of a sudden become WMDs?
I don't know what the testimony was before the grand jury, but upon perusal of this indictment I get the impression that these charges seems pretty thin, and I intuit that thinness is due to a certain haste in bringing them. I have more than a nagging suspicion that haste is due to an administration more intent on the timing of creating political narratives and Machiavellian obfuscations, then seeing these seemingly dangerous religious nutbags ever convicted. If the Nutaree go free because of a hastily brought prosecution we'll know where the true national threat lies....
