One Gregorysnob, ummm…Gina Elise’s caped protector, AKA SwinishCapitalist.
One Gregorysnob, ummm…Gina Elise’s caped protector, AKA SwinishCapitalist.
Well now, Mr Obama…Should you have the good fortune to be elected and you have your meeting with Mahmoud, (well you may call him that) what will he say to you about kinda cleaning up the streets, during your formal coronation?
Let me guess…’Hussein, you are criticizing exactly what you in your Satan nation do’
Good job, Dems.
By Mark Steyn
It’s an honor to be here, with so many people I greatly admire, including Rachel Ehrenfeld, and my comrade-in-arms from our struggle up north, Ezra Levant. I feel like giving a version of the Churchill speech in Fulton, Missouri, about how a Maple Curtain has descended across the forty-ninth parallel. It’s not quite that bad—yet—but if you do see a couple of guys bust into the Princeton Club in red coats on a dog sled, it’s the Royal Canadian Mounted Police snatch team, so just let Ezra and me know and we can get a two-minute head start down Fifth Avenue.
I’d like to start with a bit of good news/bad news for me personally. As some of you are aware, the Canadian Islamic Congress complained about an excerpt from my book America Alone published in Maclean’s magazine. They took the complaint to three of these cockamamie “human rights” commissions they have in Canada. So I was facing three trials: before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In civilized justice systems, double jeopardy is a no-no, but triple jeopardy is apparently fine and dandy. Yesterday, the Ontario Human Rights Commission announced belatedly that they’d decided not to hear the case. Since it emerged that they were considering hauling into court not just me but Canada’s best-selling news weekly over an excerpt from a book that was a number-one bestseller in Canada, they’ve had the worst four months’ publicity in their existence. So they decided, in effect, they’d had enough and to quit while they were behind. That’s the good news. The bad news is they decided to issue a verdict anyway. They declared my article and my magazine to be “racist” and “Islamophobic,” and “strongly condemned” it. Over the years, I’ve written in newspapers and magazines in dozens of countries and have attracted my share of legal problems. But yesterday was a first for me. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, having concluded they couldn’t withstand the heat of a trial, decided to cut to the chase and give us a drive-thru conviction anyway. If I’m charged with holding up a liquor store, I enjoy the right to the presumption of innocence and to defend myself in court. But when it comes to so-called Islamophobia—a word which was only invented a few years ago and which enjoys no legal definition—all the centuries-old safeguards of English Common Law go out the window.
On the radio yesterday, I was asked why I was bothering to defend myself. I live in the United States; nobody’s going to extradite me; why not just write off Canada? Here’s my self-interested answer: I make my living as an author. If I go to my American publisher to pitch a book, she’ll listen to my précis and then figure, “Well, we won’t be able to sell it in Canada, so there goes ten percent of the North American market. And we won’t be able to license a British edition, because some bigshot Saudi prince will sue in a London court. And we won’t be able to sell French and German translation rights because it runs afoul of European Union xenophobia legislation.” And pretty soon your little book is looking a lot less commercially viable. So it’s easy to say write off Canada, Britain, Europe, Australia, but at the end of the day there’ll be a lot of American authors affected by this and a lot of American books that will go unpublished here in America.
As I said, that’s my self-interested answer as to why I’m fighting this thing, but here’s my high-falutin’ one. When my children are my age, I want Western civilization still to be in business. I think the idea that America can survive as a lonely beacon of light in a dark planet is absurd. To accept these thuggish assaults on free speech in the rest of the West is to make inevitable a world in which one day they will be under assault here. We’re part of a global economy, signatories to global agreements, global distribution networks, members of transnational bodies. The notion that freedom can be undermined in every other part of the West without having an impact here in the United States is preposterous. My book is about to be published in France, and, if some French Muslim lobby group wants to do the same as the Canadian Islamic Congress, I’ll defend it in a French court in my lousy Québécois-accented French (which I believe is a capital offense in the Fifth Republic). And I’ll do that in every Western jurisdiction where bullies who can’t withstand free, honest, open debate decide instead to use the legal system to shut the debate down. The President often says about Iraq that we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Same with me and the legal jihadists: I’m going to fight them over there because otherwise we’re going to be fighting them over here, and sooner than you think.
Animal rights group PETA is rolling out its controversial “Sex Talk” ad — in which two parents urge their daughter to have a lot of sex and “pop out all the kids you want” — in the top 10 teen pregnancy states to promote spaying and neutering of pets.
“People often point their fingers at parents of pregnant teens, and we want to let the people who let their animals breed feel the heat too,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokeswoman Melissa Karpel told FOXNews.com. “It’s a fun, edgy way to get the message out about a very serious issue.”
“We think you should be having it, Sweetie,” begins her dad.
“A lot of it,” adds her mom.
“Get up there and nail everything you can,” her father says.
“If it’s got a pulse, you should be wrapped around it,” the mother finishes.
The shocked girl asks them what will happen if she gets pregnant. They both shrug it off.
“So what?” You should pop out all the kids you want,” the father says, waving away her concerns. “We’ll just leave them in the shelter, dump them in the street.”
You know, time may be right for my completely exonerated justifiable homicides, idea.
WASHINGTON—The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of Wright v. Dreckman, which calls into question professional baseball player David Wright’s 2005 check swing against the San Diego Padres and whether or not the resulting strike call should be upheld.
The decision was first handed down in New York’s lowest circuit court, Shea Stadium, after presiding home-plate umpire Ed Montague was unable to rule in the case. San Diego Padres catcher Ramon Hernandez, acting on the advice of now-retired pitcher Pedro Astacio, then filed an immediate appeal with first-base umpire Bruce Dreckman, who ruled against Wright. However, according to defense attorney David B. Reiss, in order for justice to be served, the decision must be overturned by the Supreme Court and the strike ruled a ball.
The called strike pushed the count to an even 2-2.
“Evidence and eyewitness testimony will show that not only did my client’s bat not cross the front of home plate, but his wrists never turned over in such a way as to demonstrate a clear intent to swing,” Reiss said before members of the high court Wednesday. “In addition, I submit that the plaintiff’s state of mind at the moment of the decision remains suspect. Was Mr. Dreckman paying full attention to my client? Or was he distracted by fans taunting his earlier failed call on an attempted bunt for a single? Also, there was a clear split second of hesitation on the part of Mr. Dreckman after Mr. Hernandez signaled for the appeal. Why is that?”
Bits of a two pager:
For instance, Obama asks, “What if instead of saying this in January, 2007 …”:
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.
“I had said this?”: (January 5, 2008, at a Democratic debate)
I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.
Obviously, Obama’s “what if” question in this instance would have saved him from charges of either flip-flopping or not knowing what he’s talking about.
Similarly, what if instead of saying this on November 11, 2007:
Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.
He actually said what he wrote in the New York Times on Monday, July 16:
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected al-Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.
By positing a counterfactual explanation of history for his flip-flops, Obama can be held blameless. This is especially true if you not only seek to alter what you said, but scrub the historical record by eliminating all vestiges of the offending statements which would give rise to the charges in the first place.
This is a favorite literary device of science fiction writers who employ the well-known time travel paradox that begs the question if you went back in time and murdered your father, how could you be born? Obama’s answer to the paradox is to kill the father and then be miraculously reborn as if dad had never existed:
Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks — not U.S. military muscle — for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice.”
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”
Michelle baby…Red sox or blue today? I wore the white ones yesterday…you know the white ones, you despise?
WASHINGTON — The first war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay can begin Monday, a federal judge has ruled, saying civilian courts should let the military process play out as Congress intended.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson on Thursday rejected an effort by Usama bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, to postpone his trial. Hamdan argued he would suffer irreparable harm if his was tried before he could challenge the legality of the process.
I believe habeas corpus translates to. You have the body. THAT is all that was and is needed, a God damn BODY.
So, I was strolling through the Robert McMahon cyber-gallery, and I thought “This is the kind of art we really need. Screw the pretentious, I’m-so-good-because-I’m-an-artist types. We need more like this guy.”
Not only can he paint extraordinarily well, but he’s creative in all kinds of fields.
I am offended by this protest, organised by the activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
I think they’ve got this all wrong.
I’m pro-KFC. Nothing is more delicious than KFC chips dipped in Potato&Gravy. Unless it’s KFC chicken nuggets dipped in Potato&Gravy.
So in solidarity to my evil puppet-master, Colonel Sanders, I’m going to buy a cage, strip off (and unlike these chicks, I’d go all the way) and protest.
It’s a basic human right.
blue skies, cloudy day by 1.618