Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Laura Ingraham has breast cancer

I just found out via Michelle Malkin. An announcement appears on Laura's website. Please pray for a successful treatment and her speedy recovery.

UPDATE: Today, Michelle Malkin points out that those wonderfully tolerant and compassionate members of the reality-based community (aka moonbats) on the Democratic Underground's forum are at it again. Just look at these wonderful expressions of concern and care, like this one:
I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum

They have caused too much pain to others.

On the other hand, perhaps I will do a bit of praying.

Yes, that she share, appropriately, the wing of Hell populated by Hitler's lower managmement, radio personalities, and writers from the Ministry of Propaganda.

Which is where her soul belongs in the Afterlife.

Excuse me, I have some praying to do.

Or this one:
She Probably Gave it to Herself...All that Hate, Lies, Anger...

Or this:
I Hope She Goes Into Remission

and ****ing chokes to death.

Nice. Real nice.

And then there are the various comments where people express their best wishes for her recovery, but then express their wishes that something else bad happens to her (e.g. "but I hope she goes bankrupt" and "but I hope her career is ruined by this"). If they think those hypocritical, hateful "prayers" are going to be heard, then they are sadly mistaken.

UPDATE 2: Well, despite the moonbats' best worst attempts to off her through prayer, Laura's surgery was successful:
Hey everyone! I am sitting here in bed with my wireless laptop wishing I was going to be on air today (Thursday) as I planned. Oh well, the post-op was a bit more taxing than I thought (I felt great when the anesthetic hadn't worn off!), so I'm not ready to rock and roll quite yet. I think I took a turn for the worse when in the middle of the night I turned on CNN to see Al Gore popping gasket about "extreme" judges at the moveon.hasbeens rally. Or was that Darrell Hammond from an old SNL? Anyway, it was a jolt to my system. Awaiting lab results now to see just how "angry" that breast tumor was, its "hormone receptivity," etc. This is jargon that I hope that none of you ever have to become familiar with, but sadly 1 in 9 women in this country do! I cannot wait until I can resume our daily conversation. You all are so important to me, and I hope you know how grateful I am. Until I am back behind the mic, stay with the show--we need your support--and please keep the prayers coming. To quote Pres. Bush, "I feel comforted in the storm when people pray for me. People ask me why, and I tell them because I can feel it."

Amen to that!

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Norway's SC: employees can't be fired for surfing for porn at work

This is the most ridiculous, asinine, bone-headed, moronic, maddening, pound your head against the wall, "what the &%$#*@ are they thinking with?" court ruling I've heard in a while:
The two workers on the Ekofisk field lost their jobs after being caught peeping at porn on the job in the summer of 2002. The pair took their case to court and won at both the municipal and appeals level, NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) reports.

Conoco Phillips appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court in order to have a clarification of what employees can do on company time and what employers can do to enforce violations of company policy.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the firings were not justified and have awarded the two NOK 250,000 (USD 40,000) each in compensation.

Like I said: "what the &%$#*@ are they thinking with?" Not their brains, obviously.

Note that this comes on the heels of the revelation that "progressive" Supreme Court justices have admitted to looking at European laws and rulings in order to shape their own rulings. So don't be surprised if a case like this shows up in America sometime soon.

[Snookered from the Jawa Report.]

ACLU thug gets stomped

Earlier this month, Kent Willis, head of the Virginia ACLU, wrote an extremely misleading and factually-deficient opinion piece claiming that the Boy Scouts were a "religious group." Thankfully, someone in the know set him straight:

I am an advancement chair with a local Boy Scout group. I can tell you that the literature Mr. Willis references is not required reading for any Scout. They are workbooks that Scouts can choose to review with their families and places of worship to further their own understanding of their faith.

These books are available in 33 different faiths, including Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Islamic, Zoroastrian, and many more.


While the BSA does make available a small patch in recognition of workbook completion, the actual medal earned is purchased and presented by the religious organization itself to the Scout at his place of worship.


Mr. Willis states that "religion in the Boy Scouts does not appear to be volun-tary." No Scout is ever forced or compelled to pray during our activities. If there is ever a reason that a Scout feels he cannot openly participate in something like grace before a meal, he would simply be en-couraged to be respectful to those who do wish to. The boys (and leaders) are always encouraged to observe "as is your custom," which leaves reverence open to all interpretations.

Please visit the page to read the rest of this intelligent, well-informed, and just plain awesome letter.

Read more lesser known stories through Wizbang's Carnival of the Trackbacks VIII.

Friday, April 22, 2005

I love Wendy's

Well, with the arrest of the woman in Las Vegas who was apparently trying to scam Wendy's, let's hope this whole issue starts to die. All the jokes that can be made have been made many, many, many times. Wendy's took a financial hit in the area and had to reduce hours and lay off workers. Too bad that Wendy's won't have any chance of recouperating their loses from this woman.

I, for one, have not been put off Wendy's by any of this. In fact, with all the mention of the name Wendy's, I've just been craving it more. Unfortunately, the closest restaurant is 45 minutes away in another city. Bummer! But, suffice it to say, I will be making a point of giving them my business whenever I can.

"And" out. Ampersand in.

Just a little cosmetic change to the name of the blog.

What the Founding Fathers feared

I was thinking about why the liberals are so dead-set against confirming President Bush's judicial nominees. The answer is actually quite simple and obvious. There's no way liberals will be able to enact their agenda nationwide through the federal legislative branch. They can enact it on a smaller scale in a few cities or even a handful of states, but not throughout all 50 states at one time. Thus, they have turned to the judicial branch. All it takes is for one judge to "interpret" (read: make) law and it can easily affect the entire nation. From abortion to gay marriage to... who knows? Liberals have discovered and are well into the process of creating what the Founding Fathers and other influential early Americans (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) feared the most about our form of government: an oligarchy of nearly unstoppable judges calling all the shots.
"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." – Thomas Jefferson (1820)

"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift." – Thomas Jefferson

Liberals are so strange and contradictory. On the one hand, they want to "count every vote" (even the illegal ones) and talk about "mandates" and "majorities." Yet when it comes to the law, that sort of thinking vanishes in a puff of hypocrisy. Suddenly the will of the people doesn't matter when it comes to things like abortion and gay marriage. The majority is portrayed as "mob rule" that must not only be ignored, but outright censored. And that's where the judges come in. What is not supported by the majority through their legislative representatives is enacted by a handful of activist judges.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Another Florida judge, another feeding tube

You aren't going to believe this:

Judges: Feds Can Put Feeding Tube in Cuban
A judge cleared the way for federal officials to have a feeding tube inserted in a Cuban exile who is on a weekslong hunger strike to protest his detention as a suspected spy.

Juan Emilio Aboy was at Jackson Memorial Hospital's inmate ward, hospital spokeswoman Lorraine Nelson said Friday.

A day earlier, U.S. District Judge Paul Huck agreed with another judge's order to "involuntarily administer nutrients" to Aboy through a stomach or intravenous tube, and to restrain him if he attempts to remove it.

"The decision to not eat was his choice. A court order was issued allowing the U.S. Public Health Service to take any necessary precautions in the interest of his health," said Nina Pruneda, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Miami.

So let's see if I've got this straight. If you're a mentally disabled person who cannot voluntarily swallow food, the courts do not have the authority to prevent your murder by ordering the reinsertion of your feeding tube. However, if you are a perfectly healthy person on a voluntary hunger strike, the courts suddenly have the authority to force you to eat through any means.

And you wonder why we conservatives keep saying that the courts in this country are screwed up.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Because it bears repeating for some of the fact-challenged, supposedly "reality-based" liberals

I noticed on my Site Meter referrals page that I'm getting hits from The Blog That Shall Not Be Named again, and one of that blog's fans decided to be as willfully blind as the blog's author to what I spelled out plainly about the undeniable fact of Tom DeLay attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II with the unofficial congressional delegation. How can I make it any more clear to people who remain forever ignorant because they favor their prejudices over facts and cannot admit error?

I mean, if I link to a Google news search about the congressional delegation to the funeral, will it matter?

How about a link to this story, which states:
"I have had the extraordinary opportunity to be a witness to history as a member of the congressional delegation attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II..."

"There was already, however, one unexpected develop ment: Denny Hastert had been rushed to the hospital earlier in the day with an attack of kidney stones. The delegation would now be led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay."

[Large-lettered emphasis added above and below for the benefit of the willfully blind author of The Blog That Shall Not Be Named and his equally willfully blind fans.]

Or this story, which states:
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was hospitalized yesterday for removal of a kidney stone and will not lead the House delegation to the Vatican, according to Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was leading the delegation instead. It left yesterday evening for the funeral of Pope John Paul II tomorrow morning.

Or this story, which states:
The U.S. congressional delegation to the pope's funeral will include U.S. Reps. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston. The delegation was to be led by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, but he required kidney stone surgery Wednesday.

Or this story, which states:
A bipartisan congressional delegation is joining President Bush in Rome for Pope John Paul II's funeral.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas will lead 14 Republican and 12 Democratic lawmakers

Or, finally, this story, which states:
Some of most most famous Catholics in Congress plan to attend Pope John Paul's funeral even though they won't be part of the official U-S delegation.

Speaker Dennis Hastert will lead a House delegation of 26 members, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Representative John Boehner of Ohio -- and New York Congressman Charles Rangel.

Is that clear enough yet, folks? Do I need to keep repeating it whenever somebody comes here to make some more half-witted, ignorant remarks like Brandon's? Well, I won't. Anyone else who comes here to display their incompetence, willful ignorance and complete inability to conduct a simple internet search will be shot on sight ignored.

Friday, April 08, 2005

CC latest breakdown brings an end to my dealings with him

One can only ping facts and logic off another person's skull for so long before it becomes tiring. Canadian Cynic was caught falsely portraying Tom DeLay as a liar in regards to his being part of the U.S. delegation to Pope John Paul II's funeral, but instead of admitting being caught, he's moved into the realms of subtly and not-so-subtly altering definitions and adding fabricated information (e.g. adding emphasis to the word "the" in the phrase "the U.S. delegation" to make it seem as if the phrase originally refered to only the official five-member U.S. delegation instead of both the official and unofficial delegations as one unit). And in fashion typical to him, he's resorted to childish name-calling and threatened to take the cowardly action of deleting comments (which is certainly his prerogative) that don't meet his extremely specific requirements (i.e. that I admit error when I am not in error). So I've had my say over there. He can read it and delete it if it makes him feel good. I no longer care. I will no longer visit or link to his blog. He's just not worth it anymore. In fact, now that I think about it, he never was worth it.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

More boneheaded liberal pie-chuckers

Conservative David Horowitz got hit with a pie at Butler University, adding another incident to the shameful list of pie-chuckings by liberals who hate free speech that doesn't agree with their ideology.

No doubt Canadian Cynic approves.

Read more stories you probably haven't heard about on Wizbang's latest 10 Spot.

For once, I agree with CC

I have to admit this to be both truthful and fair. Canadian Cynic actually makes a good point:
And the sad thing is ... they're serious.


The space shuttle Discovery began its slow creep to the launch pad Wednesday after a brief delay caused by the discovery of a crack in the external fuel tank’s foam insulation. NASA later said the crack was no reason for concern.

There is no punchline sufficiently cynical for this situation, is there?

Indeed. *sigh*

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

CC again (it's like shooting fish in a barrel)

Canadian Cynic "thinks" I'm supporting the physical threatening of judges in my defense of Sen. Tom DeLay against the ridiculous accusations of Sen. Frank Lautenberg. I tell you, if CC didn't have straw man arguments, he wouldn't have much on his blog.

I'll state it again: there is absolutely no way that DeLay's comment could be understood by any rational and truly reality-based individual as a threat of physical violence against U.S. judges. Anyone who does see it that way is either a lunatic or a liar. Possibly both. Judges can face legal consequences just like any other government employee. They can face punishment up to and including the loss of their jobs. That, my fellow reality-based conservatives, is what DeLay was refering to, not some idiotic straw man cooked up by far-left liberals desperately looking for something - anything - to criticize conservatives over.

Seriously, liberals. Had DeLay actually threatened U.S. judges with physical violence, it would be all over the news and he'd be in jail right now. The fact that your beloved mainstream media isn't jumping on your supposed scoop should tell you something. If not, then you are not reality-based by any stretch of the imagination.

Canadian Cynic and pals get another one wrong

Our good friend to the north, Canadian Cynic, and like-minded bloggers have attempted to take Sen. Tom DeLay to task for cancelling a speaking engagement at the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration conference on Confronting the Judicial War on Faith in favor of attending Pope John Paul II's funeral. The thrust of their criticism is that the Vatican has limited the official delegations from countries to five people. The official U.S. delegation consists of President Bush, Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and former presidents Bush and Clinton. "[H]ow exactly does DeLay think he's going to weasel his way into the U.S. delegation?" asks CC. "[H]ow exactly are they going to squeeze DeLay in there? [H]ow exactly did Tom DeLay come to join the U.S. delegation going to Rome?" (Which, admittedly, actually are polite questions when compared to the outright knee-jerk condemnation of "LIAR! FUNDIE LIAR!!! DIRTY STINKING FUNDIE LIAR!!!!!!!!!!")

The answer to CC's questions is actually simple to find for anyone possessing a brain. A 30-second (if even!) Google news search led me to this news story:

Clinton, elder Bush to join U.S. delegation

...in which we read:
Meanwhile, it was announced that the congressional delegation to the funeral will include Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) and Sen. Mike DeWine (R., Ohio).

Fourteen senators and about two dozen House members will attend.

And also this news story:

U.S. Delegation Set for Pope's Funeral

...which gives the names of those in the congressional delegation:
In addition to the official U.S. delegation, FOX News has learned that a congressional delegation (CODEL) will also attend the pope's funeral. While not "official," the group will be considered "guests of the Vatican" and will be seated at the funeral.


Senate Republicans participating in the delegation leaving Wednesday evening include Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Mel Martinez of Florida. Democrats on the CODEL will include Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Joe Biden of Delaware, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. All the senators but Frist are Catholic.

Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will lead a House delegation to Rome.

I bet CC won't be criticizing Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Biden, Dodd, Mikulski and Pelosi for "weaseling their way into the U.S. delegation." And I bet his buddy won't be apologizing for calling DeLay a liar, either.

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Starving Terri: Facts change opinions

Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

Isn't it simply amazing how just a few facts can radically change people's opinions? No wonder liberals are so afraid of honestly presenting them to the public.

See also: "Now They Tell Us" (David Limbaugh) and "An Honest Poll
(Michelle Malkin).

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Another winner from Jeff Blogworthy

PEliCAN - Democrats unveil new Social Security reform plan
Democrats unveiled their new plan to save Social Security today on Capital Hill. Known as PEliCAN, Democrats have ingeniously addressed four of society’s ills within one simple program.

1.) PEliCAN will save social security by reducing the drain on the system.

2.) PEliCAN solves the organ donation shortage by insuring a steady supply to those in desperate need of organ transplants.

3.) PEliCAN will ease the burden on families that are currently required to care for those with no hope of recovery.

4.) PEliCAN will save billions of dollars annually in medical costs and drug benefits.

"We will save social security by purging pre-cadavers from the entitlement rolls," said Ted Kennedy.

"Pre-cadavers." lol!

See Jeff's post for the rest. It's definitely worth it.

Friday, April 01, 2005

Sen. Lautenberg accuses DeLay of physically threatening judges

And the "reality-based" liberals are eating it up:
April 1, 2005

Tom DeLay
Majority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Majority Leader DeLay,

I was stunned to read the threatening comments you made yesterday against Federal judges and our nation’s courts of law in general. In reference to certain Federal judges, you stated: “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”

As you are surely aware, the family of Federal Judge Joan H. Lefkow of Illinois was recently murdered in their home. And at the state level, Judge Rowland W. Barnes and others in his courtroom were gunned down in Georgia.

Our nation’s judges must be concerned for their safety and security when they are asked to make difficult decisions every day. That’s why comments like those you made are not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous. To make matters worse, is it appropriate to make threats directed at specific Federal and state judges?

You should be aware that your comments yesterday may violate a Federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. §115 (a)(1)(B). That law states:

“Whoever threatens to assault…. or murder, a United States judge… with intent to retaliate against such… judge…. on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished [by up to six years in prison]”

Threats against specific Federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a Member of Congress. In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well.

Federal judges, as well as state and local judges in our nation, are honorable public servants who make difficult decisions every day. You owe them – and all Americans – an apology for your reckless statements.


Frank R. Lautenberg

Oh, please... Lautenberg is reading more into the statement than is actually there. Any reasonable and truly reality-based individual would not infer in the slightest any sort of threat of physical violence against judges from DeLay's statement. But here we have someone comparing DeLay's words to the murder of Federal Judge Lefkow's family. How much more ridiculous can you get?

Actually, quite a bit more.

UPDATE: Here's the webpage from Lautenberg's Senate website: Lautenberg Cites Criminal Laws DeLay May Have Broken in Threat Against Federal Judges

UPDATE 2: Gee... I never saw this coming. Nope.

Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!