Right Wing Nut House

Really. I’m serious. There’s no other possible explanation for this riotously funny, over the top, idiocy that I predict will be linked to by more right wing bloggers than any story this year so far:

TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM - Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation

U.N. SOS - We need your help to end the reign of international criminals.

It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators. Murder for occupation and theft of land is illegal. Murder of journalists is criminal. Remove the traitors who have stolen the U.S. budget and used it to commit international crimes against humanity.

If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here in the U.S. by a foreign country’s military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing and go to their president’s office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our government NOW. There is no meeting with Congress that is going to change what they are doing. We must put the power of the people into action and stay there until they leave!

Inviting everyone to the White House for a protest rally to show that we do not accept the criminal government, illegal wars and the permanent occupation planned for Iraq and Afghanistan. For Nat Turner, For Martin and Coretta, For all the Torture and Assassination in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and many others - We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer. Imprisonment and torture based on race, religion, resources or region is no different than the slavery we sought to abolish years ago. The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars?

We are calling on all citizens and governments in every country to stand with us. We are calling on all Member Nations of the U.N.; All Representatives and Justices in the World Court and International Criminal Courts; All Human Rights Advocates; All Soldiers and CIA agents and government officials who have been blackmailed or are in fear of the dictators to join us in ending this reign of corporate terror in our government. The World Criminal Courts need to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for admitted crimes and known crimes of international scope. The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity. We need all of you to save U.S. victims and global victims from their ongoing criminal activity. We are calling on the military, police, citizens and religious organizations to stand with us and help us to bring democracy back to the United States and by doing so, free the world from the wrath, occupation, theft, torture, blackmail and assassination by the Criminals in the United States Government. What they have done all over the world is much worse than what Saddam Hussein has done, so why are they not in jail too? They have admitted to international and national crimes, so why have they not been taken to Court too?

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

The person behind this comedy is Darrow Boggiano. Now, Mr. Boggiano fancies himself something of an activist…or a fantasist. On his website Political Cooperative.Org, he writes this plea for volunteers:

Any amount of time you have to offer is greatly needed! We have over one million subscribers and have a lot of work to do in preparing for upcoming events.

If this guy has one million subscribers anywhere except his overactive imagination, I’ll walk down the middle of Market Street in San Francisco totally naked singing the Internationale. It wouldn’t be pretty, I assure you.

Now just to prove that this fellow is 2 shakes short of a finished martini, here’s what he wrote in tribute to lost comrades who were reporting the “truth” in Iraq and were killed by American soldiers:

The Political Cooperative is a tribute to our recently lost Activists and Journalists who were photographing or reporting the truth of the war (many of whom were killed by U.S. and British Troops), and they include Ossie Davis, Rosa Parks, Paul Wellstone, Bill Rodgers, Terry Lloyd, Paul Moran, Gaby Rado, Kaveh Golestan, Michael Kelly, Kamaran Abd al-Razaq Muhammad, David Bloom, Julio Anguita Parrado, Christian Liebig, Tariq Ayoub, Taras Protsyuk, Jose Couso, Mario Podesta, Veronica Cabrera, Elizabeth Neuffer, Walid Khalifa Hassan al-Dulami, Richard Wild, Jeremy Little, Mazin Dana, Ahmad Shawkat, Ali Abdul Aziz, Ali al-Khatib; and many others.

I wonder what Michael Kelly’s widow thinks of this moonbat using her dead husband’s name to promote his anti-American views?

Mr. Boggiano seems to have sprung up from literally no where. A Google search turned up only a couple of references to him mostly about this upcoming coup d’etat. This leads me to believe that this is a classic CIA destabilization operation carried out by clandestine agents bent on destroying the credibility of the left in the United States.

Simply put, no one can be this stupid. Calling for Amnesty International to take over the government of the United States? Storming the White House in the first place?

It’s a CIA trick, gotta be. If I were Kos or the DU’ers, I would file a FOIA request for all information regarding the government’s involvement in this operation. The credibility of moonbats everywhere is at stake. Just think about it; how can any self respecting conspiracy theorist be tied to this nutjob? Who is going to believe that “Bush lied and people died” if they are lumped in with this wacko?

The funny thing is going to the White House on March 15 and seeing how many people actually show up. Since the time set for the revolution is 12:00 AM, my guess is most of the moonbats will be too drunk or stoned to remember where they were supposed to be and what they were supposed to be doing.

Well, at least Mr. Boggiano got what he was after; a lot of attention. Now let’s see what he does with it.

UPDATE

As I suspected, we on the right are going nuts over Mr. Boggiano’s delusion. Top bloggers like Charles Johnson (check out the always hilarious lizardoids in the comments) Ed Morrissey, Rand Simberg and a host of smaller sites are all having a lot of fun at this idiot’s expense. As of 11:30 AM Central there were 14 blogs listed on Technorati linking to the moonbat’s site.

I’m sure it is he who is getting the last laugh, however. By paying him so much attention, he’ll probably be able to raise his ad rates not to mention giving him what he so desparately craves; attention.

The guy is going to be a hero at the DU site by sundown.

Also, Alexandra only has one thing to say…

Sweetness and Light prints the specific law broken by Mr. Boggiano and anyone who conspires with him.

At this rate, the guy will have his own blog at Daily Kos…

As a conservative, I’m used to the left mis-representing and even being deliberately misleading about the principals and beliefs most of us on the right hold. Hence, we’re tarred with the epithet “racist” because we disagree with the special pleaders in the civil rights lobby who advocate quotas and other “remedies” that are at odds with the very idea of equality. For the sin of disagreeing with the racialists on public policy matters, we’re called Kluxers and worse.

And let’s not forget the casual use of the terms “Nazi” and “fascist” to describe any number of imagined transgressions by conservatives against the liberal credo, despite the fact it is laughingly apparent that those who use those pejoratives wouldn’t know a Nazi if Hitler himself came up and kissed them full on the mouth. (I suppose now I will be branded a homophobe because I wouldn’t relish the idea).

That said, I was interested to read Glenn Greenwald’s latest effort to “explain” conservatism to the rest of us. Not that Mr. Greenwald ever has much original thinking in his diatribes. As Alexandra von Maltzan pointed out yesterday, Greenwald’s writing is little more than a tired echo of what conservatives can read on a daily basis at Kos or any other lock-step lefty blog where Bush Derangement Syndrome reigns supreme and, if you can believe their breathless rhetoric, the republic itself will fall by sometime tomorrow. Or is it next Thursday? Hard to keep track…

But what made this overly long and repetitive piece by Greenwald so fascinating was an almost slavish devotion to superficiality. Now, in defense of Greenwald, he makes an excellent point about blogging that should be a lesson to us all:

One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere — with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought — is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wanted to take back things I wrote in the heat of passion or that didn’t quite come out the way I intended. But blogging means feeding the beast. And the monster that resides on this website rarely allows for the kind of reflection that I give articles that appear at The American Thinker or other places.

But Greenwald’s piece would not, could not benefit from any kind of reflection or self-criticism due to it shallowness of thought and lazy logic. Perhaps it would have been better if Mr. Greenwald had consigned this piece to the dustbin of blog history and not hit the “publish” button at all.

There is so much jaw-dropping idiocy in this screed that while I was reading it my mandible hit the floor and began to dig. There is no way I could cover all of it so allow me to take some “highlights” and illustrate my thesis: that Greenwald’s critique of Bush supporters is so depthless, it’s in danger of sliding off the monitor and disappearing into the ether:

Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

Greenwald then goes on to cite the cases of Andrew Sullivan, Bob Barr, and Senator Voinovich who have come under heavy fire from conservatives for “straying.” The only trouble is, the people who want to kick these folks out of the Conservative Book Club and take away their memberships to Augusta National have about as much sway in the movement as Greenwald himself.

Brent Bozell (who fills the same role for conservatives that David Brock’s Media Matters does for liberals) comes in for special criticism for coming down on Andrew Sullivan’s supposed lack of conservatism. Andrew may be an hysteric about some things, but he’s certainly an independent cuss and is no one’s lap dog. Bozell’s criticism of Sullivan had much to do with Andrew’s apostasy in supporting John Kerry in “04 - something many conservatives who are as angry at George Bush as Andrew is will not forgive him for.

It is very hard for Mr. Sullivan to claim common cause with conservatives when he proclaims his support for someone who by any yardstick was considered one of the top three liberals in the United States Senate. Nevertheless, most criticism of Andrew that I’ve seen has been his comparing the stress techniques used against terrorists with the worst kinds of torture used by Hitler and Stalin. Andrew has been brave and correct in taking the US military and the Bush Administration to task for any number of transgressions against human rights committed against the detainees in our custody. But his hysterical denunciations of the mildest kinds of interrogation techniques were over the top and uncalled for.

Is Andrew Sullivan a conservative? As far as I’m concerned, he can define himself any way he chooses and we are free to agree or disagree. I look upon Andrew as our crazy conservative uncle whose rants show an independence of thought that is vital to any ideological movement. He will continue to be flayed by those whose shallowness matches Mr. Greenwald’s in seeing his disagreements with the Administration as something akin to treason. But for Greenwald to posit the notion that Sullivan is no longer considered a conservative because of gadflies like Bozell is loony.

Barr and Voinovich? To equate criticism for some positions taken by either of those two worthies with the desire to drum them out of the conservative ranks reveals more about liberals than it does conservatives. As “proof” that Barr is about to lose his Haliburton board membership. Greenwald links to a story where one man - ONE MAN - criticizes Barr for his damning the Bush Administration over the NSA intercept program.

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. “I can’t believe I’m in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States,” Sorcinelli fumed.

Bob Barr is about to handed his walking papers by…by…Richard Sorcinelli?

This isn’t shallow nor is it even disingenuous. It is a lie. Or out and out stupidity. Not even a high school essayist would dare take one example of something and then make a sweeping statement of fact using that example as its sole means of support.

More surface critiquing by Greenwald:

People who self-identify as “conservatives” and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because “conservatism” is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as “liberal” is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government

Greenwald offers nothing except the cage rattling of Bozell and that well known and influential conservative leader….(um, whassis name? Oh! Yeah…Richard Sorcinelli) as proof for the entire thesis of his article.

His critique of Bush’s conservatism is a little better. He correctly points out that Bush is a big spender (Welcome to the club, Glenn. Conservatives too numerous to mention have been saying that for 4 years). Beyond that, he seems to think that conservatives are not questioning Bush on his use of the power of the federal government.

I realize that when writing such long, interesting (?) pieces it is difficult to read much of anything else. But the fascinating thing about conservatism these days is in the vigorous debate that has gone on between Constitutional absolutists and war mongers; between those who advocate the forging of a true conservative governing class and those who want conservatism to remain at arms length from government. And the reason these and other vital debates are taking place between conservatives is because liberals refuse to engage at any level on any serious issues. It’s hate Bush all day, all the time, and may the devil take the rest.

Greenwald’s transference of his Bush hatred to Bush supporters is par for the course. Here’s another head shaker:

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary “conservative” is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

What planet is this guy from? Without one iota of proof, Greenwald tars Bush supporters with the blanket statement that there are “no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us…” So silly. So shallow. Unsupported by any facts or even a whiff of fact. But it does seem to prove Alexandra’s main point against Greenwald; that there is no difference between Mr. Greenwald and the Koskids, DU’ers or any other lefty site where Bush is blamed for everything from Tsunamis to mine disasters.

But then, Greenwald always has hyperbole and contradiction to fall back on:

And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far — they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law — I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah (ed: didn’t you just now say it?), I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.

Um…’kay. In the world that sane, rational people inhabit, one would expect just one, tiny shred of proof that the statement above is anything but the wild eyed rant of a maniacal Bush hater. And to say in one sentence that people like Hinderaker, Goldberg, and Goldstein are “prepared to support far, far more extreme measures” than any we’ve seen only to say in the very next sentence “while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah…” is a laughable example of the one side of Greenwald’s brain not knowing what the other is saying. At the very least, it shows slopping thinking.

Greenwald goes on to say that because Michelle Malkin wrote a book in defense of the internment of Japanese during World War II that she (and Hinderaker and Hewitt) would gladly start the round up of Muslims and march them off to camps today if given half a chance. Perhaps if Greenwald had offered one - just one example where any of those bloggers had advocated such a position, his rant would at least start a discussion. But he doesn’t so it’s impossible. It’s just more red meat for the denizens of the fever swamps who keep predicting the end of the republic but are continuously frustrated by the resilience of the old girl to the machinations of both liberal loonies like Greenwald as well as cuckoo conservatives.

I apologize for the length of this post. I could go on but I’m sure I’ve already lost most of you. The point of this is to show that liberals like Greenwald will always refuse to engage conservatives on any meaningful level because in the end, their arguments are so shallow that to get beyond the Bush Derangement Syndrome is impossible. I can’t think of a serious conservative who has not had major disagreements with Bush about a host of issues. Yes there are fawning acolytes. But there are far more serious conservatives who support the President generally but oppose him vehemently on issues ranging from the way the war has been prosecuted, to our policy on detainees, to our on again-off again liberation policy in the Middle East, to the power wielded by some social conservatives, to even some aspects of domestic security. If Greenwald would read something besides the “me too” screeds on Kos and Atrios, he might even educate himself about why conservatives keep winning elections.

UPDATE 2/13

Greenwald responds to his critics here. He takes me to task specifically for pooh-poohing the idea that Andrew Sullivan has had his Conservative Mastercard yanked by his many and vociferous critics.

With a perfect sense of timing (akin to my bitching about the boss as he walks into the room behind me), Sullivan makes Greenwald’s quote about him his “Quote of the Day” saying that the piece is “diagnosing the current situation accurately.”

No one likes to be criticized. And both Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Greenwald should know by now that the majority of people who read what we write are fierce partisans who see the political internet as a battlefield - take no prisoners and attack relentlessly. But I think Mr. Sullivan is being overly sensitive for this reason: The overwhelming number of conservative bloggers who read what he writes still consider him a man of the right. One would hardly call Gregory Djerejian, someone who has absolutely skewered the Administration over prosecution of the Iraq War, a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor would too many people call John Cole a liberal for his sharp attacks on the Administration over torture.

I believe the point I made is valid; that conservative “apostates” may be criticized and called all sorts of names. But no one is seriously suggesting that they’ve changed their stripes and defected to the left. Those that do - a very small subset of loudmouthed yawpers - cannot and should not be confused with the vast majority of conservatives whose minds function above a 5th grade level.

Read the rest of Mr. Greenwald’s reply where he fleshes out a few of his thoughts from his original post that I still believe was an exercise in superficial and shallow thinking.

.

As regular readers of this site know, I like to involve myself in discussions on the weighty questions confronting the country. Hardly a day goes by that I don’t contribute in my small, insignificant way to the national conversation on a variety of issues. War, peace, taxes, ethics, the law - anything and everything that tickles my fancy and that might engage my readers and other bloggers in conversation is fodder for this beast of a blog.

Then there are times when I read something so illustrative of both the looniness and loutishness of liberals that I have to take time to examine it. First, you have to figuratively remove it from the bottom of your shoe for it is usually so fetid and corrupt that you don’t know whether to forget about it and toss it in the “poop bag” or, overcome with curiosity, place the offending offal under a microscope and inspect it to discover its pathology.

In the case of Antonia Zerbisias, it might be a good idea to wear a full bio suit in order to read this diseased rant:

While Muslim religious extremists are rioting in the streets of Beirut, Gaza City and Kabul, Scandinavian embassies are being torched and Jordanians are deprived of their Danish feta over cartoons that were never actually published in any legitimate newspaper, the right-wing blogosphere has been staging its own “blogburst”: the act of reproducing the offending depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

It’s a “simultaneous, co-ordinated posting by a large group of webmasters and bloggers on a given topic,” says Israpundit who, along with Michelle Malkin, who is like Ann Coulter but not as funny and not so skinny, are leading the cartoon crusade.

Follow their politics and you’ll understand why they’re on this particular blogwagon: they hate Muslims. In fact, if they were to write about Jews the way they sometimes do about followers of the Prophet Muhammad, they’d be denounced as anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers.

First of all, I hardly feel the need to defend the willowy Malkin from the verbal onslaught of someone whose picture brings to mind the sharply defined features of Corporal Klinger from M*A*S*H* not to mention a body that brings back fond personal memories of a large canvas sack that I used to use as a hammock in the back yard.

But hey! That’s just me…

At any rate, getting to the maggoty portion of her rant (still wearing that bio suit, I hope!) her entire screed is based on the erroneous conclusion that conservative bloggers are republishing the cartoons because they hate Muslims.:

No doubt, the Kartoon Karnage Kapers are inexcusable, and threaten to escalate into even more senseless death and destruction. That’s why the absolute glee with which this has been received by the online cons strikes me as so puzzling. Do they enjoy the blood sport of watching out-of-control Muslim mobs in the streets?

It’s also bemusing to see how they have suddenly declared solidarity with the heretofore “appeasers” of Europe for republishing the cartoons.

In issuing their fatwa on the Muslims who are calling for the heads of people whose mightiest weapon is the pen, the North American pyjamahadeen have gone too far, using the incident as another reason to bash Muslims and sow further divisions between what are already “clashing civilizations.”

It’s like they have been waiting for just this opportunity.

Yes, dearie…”no doubt” you see “glee.” What else you can see with blinders on is a different question for another day. But how one can translate the passionate defense of the freedom of speech into “hate” and “glee” is the work of sheer, obstinate ignorance. Your point is one I partially agree with - that republishing the cartoons far and wide is not being helpful and is probably causing millions of ordinary Muslims pain. But the fact remains, it is a perfectly legitimate exercise in free speech to republish those cartoons as a way to show solidarity with people who have been forced into hiding in fear of their lives. While it is true that a small minority of conservatives hate all Muslims (you know…like the way you hate all conservatives), to paint Michelle Malkin and the overwhelming majority of conservative bloggers who are reposting the caricatures with the kind of broad brush your small minded rant appears to do is not only unworthy of someone who writes for a major newspaper but also demonstrates a shallowness of thought not uncommon with people of your ideological ilk.

And, dearest readers, if you thought our Antonia was a little off her noodle in what she’s written before, get a load of this:

To be honest, I think that, here in Canada anyway, our Muslim communities are too diverse and too embedded in our culture and society for any kind of concerted reaction.

As for violence, I would guess that Muslims are more victims than perpetrators.

After all, when Irshad Manji published her controversial The Trouble With Islam: A Wake Up Call for Honesty and Change in 2003, no harm ever came to her despite so many — again right-wing — bloggers’ musings that it would. That said, their fears helped Manji move a lot of books around the world.

Frankly, we’re a lot more tolerant society than our own intolerant right would like to believe.

Which makes me wonder who the real hate-mongers are: those who are cut off from modern communications technology and are more easily subject to the machinations of ignorant clerics — or those that should know better and who claim to be morally superior.

There is almost a dreamlike quality to those words; as if our Antonia lives in that delicious pre-wakeful state when you’re not sure whether or not the dream you just had was real. Best thing to do Antonia is pinch yourself honey because unless you wake up pretty quick, you are gonna be one disappointed Canuck.

I wonder if the name Salomon Rushdie rings a bell. And the fact that one insignificant Canadian author who wrote a book mildly critical of Islam didn’t get beheaded you see as forbearance on the part of the wild eyed fanatics, only shows you either to have the critical thinking skills of my pet cat Snowball or the naivete of a 7 year old. Let’s hope it’s the latter since Snowball is actually quite intelligent and I’m sure a much better conversationalist than you are.

People you call “hatemongers” for standing up for what they believe in - despite the fact that I personally think it wrongheaded and hurtful - are doing something with our liberty that absolutely must be done every once in a while. Our freedoms must be taken out and exercised vigorously or else, like unused muscles, they will atrophy, wither, and die.

Keep your hate to yourself, Antonia. And while you’re at it, try reading a little bit about our enemies from some other source besides the Daily Mail. They are the ones who believe we are in a clash of civilizations. And not to acknowledge that fact is almost as dangerous as handling one of your hate filled screeds.

UPDATE

Ace takes on the jewbaiting issue:

Gee, I don’t know. Perhaps it has something to do with the rather central tenet of liberal democracy that all ideas, no matter how offensive to some, should be responded to peaceably. Bad speech should be countered with good speech. Not with arson and rioting and murder and calls for terrorism.

As for the charge that Holocaust deniers would be called anti-Semites: well, yes, they would be, and they are. But again, the distinction that seems to elude this apologist for murder is that offensive speech should be met with more speech, not with molotov cocktails.

Not only that but all anti-Semites are not Holocaust deniers. In fact, many modern day Nazis brag about wanting to “finish what Hitler started.” Of course, if you’re like the Iranian President, you can be both and still be welcome in liberal circles as long as you’re anti-Bush.

NOTE: I had to republish this due to technical difficulties.

UPDATE II

And what does Our Miss Malkin think of being used as a foil in dear Antonia’s screed?

You show me one ounce of glee expressed on this website over the conflagration, and I’ll show you one ounce of genuine, unqualifed concern expressed by Ms. Zerbisias over the senseless Cartoon Jihad bloodshed of victims such as Father Santoro.

I’ve no more time to waste on Zerbisias and her ilk in the media who want to lecture us all about being hate-filled and misinformed–while spewing hatred themselves and refusing to fully inform. Glenn Reynolds and readers dispense with her most effectively here.

Youch! I felt that all the way over here.

Watching and reading how Democrats responded to George Bush’s State of the Union speech last night it suddenly dawned on me; they looked for all the world like the Coneheads, stranded on a planet where the native customs were totally alien to them and where they were unfamiliar with what would pass for good manners.

Of course, the fact that most Democrats have pointy heads only makes the comparison all the more apropos.

It really was a weird display. Hillary Clinton at times looked exactly like my 5 year old cousin trying to move his bowels, straining forward and grimacing as if she could use a spoonful or so of metamusil.

Old warhorse Barb Mikulski, dressed to the nines in a bright red suit, appeared to mouth the word “bullsh**t” following the President’s line “ If there are people inside our country who are talking with Al Qaida, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again,” proving to one and all that the Democratic party is unserious about domestic security. How to hide this weakness will preoccupy the moonbats for the rest of the election cycle as they struggle to find the right balance between sloganeering and outright lying.

Dapper Charlie Rangel appeared to be sucking lemons every time the camera found him. He reminded me of Mr. Brunberg, the curmudgeonly owner of the local Ben Franklin store where I grew up who, it was rumored, routinely feasted on the flesh of children who caused problems in his store.

Harry Reid (who probably has a federal prosecutor measuring him for a prison jumpsuit as I write this) played the contrarian as the entire chamber applauded the President’s acknowledgment of the two recent additions to the Supreme Court except him. Harry must have been sleeping during the civics class that covered respect for co-equal branches of government.

And who was that with ex-Clinton hit man Rahm Emmanuel? The man(?) with a bowl haircut, rings on all five of the fingers of his left hand, a scarf wrapped around his neck in the fashion of New York drama critic, and eyes that peered over glasses that had slid down to the end of his nose reminded me of Paul Benedict, the actor who played the snippy Mr. Bentley on The Jeffersons. Like I said…weird.

Then there was poor Joe Lieberman. Following the President saying “Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom,” Fightin’ Joe stuck out like sore thumb as the only Democrat in the chamber who clapped. The scowling visage of my home state Senator Barak Obama sitting two seats away highlighted how the Democrats really felt every time the word “freedom” was mentioned. In fact, that seemed to be a reoccurring theme emerging today as the Democrats across the country continue to belittle the thought that human beings are endowed at birth with certain natural rights, the free exercise thereof being squashed by governments all over the world. I found this from Tim Graham at the Corner:

Driving in, I had to sample some “progressive talk” on the SOTU. At the Stephanie Miller Show, they were laughing about (and playing an audio montage of) how many times Bush used the “F-Bomb” last night. That’s their strange description of the word “freedom.” They also mocked the mentions of “liberty.”

And what in the name of God are the Democrats going to do about their friends at the Democratic Underground? Like a drunken brother in law that a host has to hide in the closet before the guests arrive for a formal dinner, serious party members - at least those who are serious about winning elections - ought to be fretting over things like this:

in_cog_ni_to: Has this ever happened to you? The Star Spangled Banner use to bring tears to my eyes. I would always choke up with pride when I heard the anthem. (before I learned how bad this freakin’ country is) and last night at my son’s wrestling meet, the school we were at played the Star Spangled Banner (that’s never happened at any other meet) and I found myself…..ANGRY BEYOND BELIEF! I WAS P*SSED THAT THEY PLAYED IT. P*SSED THAT I HAD TO LISTEN TO IT AND P*SSED THAT THE SHEEPLE STOOD THERE WITH THEIR HANDS ON THEIR HEARTS as if this country is something to be proud of. I was SHOCKED by my gut reaction. I was FURIOUS. It was so unexpected. Have any of you ever experienced that? It’s been YEARS since I’ve been at any event where the SSB was played and my reaction was so visceral. I-was-angry.

(HT: John Hawkins)

Read the rest of that thread for some real jaw dropping responses to the moonbat’s posting. It dramatically points up the dirty little secret Democrats are desperately trying to keep the rest of the country from finding out: they really don’t like the country of their birth very much. And since a recent poll showed that 85% of the people are indeed proud to be an American, if I were a Democrat I’d find some very deep and very dark hole to lure the moonbats at DU into - at least until after the November election.

The display of discourteousness, bad manners, and contempt by Democrats during the President’s State of the Union speech I guarantee did not go down well with independents. It may have been emotionally satisfying to their base. But it only makes it harder for the liberals to win over the very people that Republicans have spent the last year trying their best to alienate; unaffiliated voters whose choices will determine who controls both houses of Congress next January.

There are times where I actually feel sorry for the far left in this country. Events have conspired to make them such a political irrelevancy that watching them self destruct day after day is like watching that Star Trek Next Generation episode where the Enterprise crew was caught up in a time loop that had them repeating the same day over and over. Unlike the starship crew however, the left is unable to escape their own loop because in order to do so they would have to practice a minimum amount of introspection regarding where their tactics and rhetoric have gotten them. That way lies madness which makes watching them something akin to watching a NASCAR race at Daytona; you wait with a combination of trepidation and excitement for the inevitable crack-up in turn #3.

Witness this latest jaw dropper from our friends at Truthout, a site that combines the looniness of the Democratic Underground with a comical belief in their own importance to the Democratic party a la Daily Kos. One William Rivers Pitt sends an arch, insulting, and in the end uproariously funny memo to Congressional Democrats asking them to “walk out” during the President’s State of the Union speech next week:

I have a wild and crazy idea.

George W. Bush’s delivery of the State of the Union address will take place on Tuesday, January 31, a little more than a week from now. It is my strong belief that every single Democrat present in the House chamber for the speech should, at a predetermined moment, stand up and walk out. No yelling. No heated words. Every Democrat should simply stand silently and leave.

Crazy, I know. Crazy, and possibly the best idea ever put before a body of Democrats since the New Deal.

Well Bill, aren’t you the “wild and crazy” guy! Now you’ve piqued my interest - please continue:

Understand this, congressional Democrats, and understand it well: you are not dealing merely with a body of political opponents in the GOP. You are dealing with a group of people that want you exterminated politically. The days of walking the halls of the Rayburn Building, sharing a bourbon with a colleague from the other side of the aisle, and hammering out a compromise are as dead as Julius Caesar. Collegiality is out. Mutual respect is out. They want you gone for good. Erased. Destroyed.

Aren’t we the bloodthirsty ones!

For the love of God, you are being compared to Osama bin Laden all over network television because some within your ranks have had the courage to question the war in Iraq. It hasn’t been subtle. Bin Laden, according to the right-wing talking heads, is getting his talking points straight from Howard Dean. These are the out-front spokespeople for the folks running the GOP right now. If you think there is compromise to be had with these people, if you think there is quarter to be given to you, then I have a nice, big red bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

For a minute there, I though Mr. Pitt was going to try and defend the indefensible. But as I’ve been pointing out for several days, the left has decided not to try and defend themselves against the charge that Osama’s taped screed was interchangeable with just about anything found on Michael Moore’s website or in Howard Dean’s speeches. Instead, they simply change the subject by comparing their fantastic conspiracies with legitimate anti-war protests. Despite taking a deconstructionist position that words don’t matter, anyone with half a brain knows the truth of the matter and have judged accordingly. If Mr. Pitt would have come out and said that the left recognizes Osama Bin Laden is mimicking their rhetoric in a shameless attempt to divide Americans and by God, we’re not going to let that terrorist scum do that, I would at least have a little respect for the galoot. Instead, he ignores the obvious by sticking his head in the sand and pretending up is down, black is white, and that God didn’t make little green apples.

You’ve been outflanked, Democrats. Abramoff won’t help you, and the noise machine is preparing to terrorize the American people into such a distracted state that anything you say in the next ten months will be lost amid the howling. The midterms are pretty much a done deal, and your continued marginalization will proceed at speed.

You can stomp your feet and yell at the wall. You can put your head in your hands and weep. You can sit silently and be simply satisfied that your own job-for-life is secure, thanks to your friendly district back home, and be damned to actually doing anything of substance. In other words, you can continue to do what you’ve been doing since this outrageous assault on basic American democracy began.

Hold the phone here. Didn’t Mr. Pitt say that Republicans are out to “destroy” the Democrats? How can we do that if these same Congressmen are “simply satisfied that your own job-for-life is secure, thanks to your friendly district back home.” Pretty hard to destroy someone who can’t be beaten which, according to analysts like Michael Barone includes around 98% of House members, both Republican and Democratic. Now if Pitt is talking about national elections, perhaps if the Democrats didn’t beg to be destroyed every four years by fielding a candidate with the personality of a cocktail table and the brains of a marmoset - not to mention someone who thinks the politics of George McGovern is the magic key to victory at the polls - then perhaps you would find even red state Americans a little more open to your message. As it is, when people think that Democrats would rather watch them being killed than listen in on conversations by people in America who are talking with the killers, they tend not to pay any attention.

Here’s Mr. Pitt’s grand finale to his fantasy SOTU evening:

Walk outside to the steps of the Capitol Building and hold a Counter-State-of-the-Union. Lay out your plans for a better future. Explain how you will reform the system that spawned Mr. Abramoff. Demand answers and explanations about what is happening in Iraq, what is happening over at the National Security Agency, and why this administration believes itself to be completely above the law.

I can even offer a bit of text for your opening statement. “Three years ago during this very speech,” your leading spokesperson can say from those steps, “Mr. Bush told us that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons - which is one million pounds - of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, al Qaeda connections, and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program. He said all this three years ago, during this all-important annual address, and all of it was a lie. The American people deserve an explanation.”

First, in order to outline your party’s plans for a “better future” don’t you think that you should, you know, like have some plans in the first place? A small detail after all. There should be no problem in coming up with a complete party platform in a week.

As for the rest, the fact that the President was quoting from a report written by an organization that you and your friends put so much stock in, the United Nations, seems to have been lost in the excitement of carrying on with your deranged missives against the Bush Administration. And since most people can recognize the difference between a “lie” and being given shoddy intelligence, I’m afraid that part of your little speech will fall flat as well.

I would suggest that Mr. Pitt keep trying to encourage the Democrats to participate in more of these made for TV moments of drama. It appears to be all that your party has outside of an irrational and abiding hatred for the President and his supporters.

UPDATE:

Frequent commenter Ken McCracken writes:

Please, please please is there some way we could get them to actually try this?

Such an en masse temper tantrum would be the signal moment of the end of the Democratic party. They would literally be walking out of Congress and into oblivion.

Ken is right, of course. And the fact that Mr. Pitt doesn’t realize this makes him the Cluebat of the Week.

Yesterday proved to be a day to forget for our friends on the left. It appears that they lost so much bile and spittle in defending, attacking, defending again, and finally going stark, raving, loony that I daresay many of them will need a bile transfusion not to mention an IV drip to replace all the bodily fluids they expended in an unsuccessful effort to respond to news headlines that highlighted their total cluelessness.

In fact, I’d like to use this blog to offer my assistance in their recovery. Anyone wishing to donate their bodily fluids, please deposit them either here or here. And remember, all gifts are tax deductible.

The day began with the release of the Barrett Report, an independent counsel monstrosity that took 10 years and $23 million to figure out that 1) former housing secretary Henry Cisneros is a crook; and 2) the Clinton Administration was peppered with corrupt, lying, weasels who weren’t above using the IRS to cover-up their venality.

Well, duh.

Predictably, the left pounced on this bit of non-news and attacked Republicans for being two faced not to mention trying to distract the populace from the Abramoff scandal. As usual, the left resorted to moral relativity to dismiss the criminal actions of the Clinton administration: You’re scandal is worse than our scandal.

How edifying.

A little later in the morning, the first really big bomb of the day was dropped by none other than Deborah Howell of the Washington Post who wrote a story on the Abramoff scandal in which she identified some Democratic pols who received money from some of the sleazeball’s Indian tribe clients. For some reason, the left took serious umbrage to this information - information available from the Federal Election Commission among other places - in that someone in the media was trying to point out the obvious; the Jackanape Abramoff sleaze machine touches both political parties.

This just won’t do. This is a Republican scandal after all and how dare you bring any Democrats into it?

At any rate, Howell responded on the Washington Post Blog yesterday and the legions of lefties left so many comments of, shall we say, a personal nature including suggestions that Howell perform feats of anatomical legerdemain that most textbooks say is impossible. This caused the prim and proper folks at the Post to turn off the comments to the site which only caused the moonbats to spin further out of control.

It was a great show and only reveals the absolute, total electoral desperation of the left. They don’t believe they have any issues they can run on that can win next November. In fact, they think they’re only chance to overturn the House and Senate is to hold the Republicans up as the sole party of corruption and sleaze.

Note to my liberal friends: Running around screaming “neener, neener, neener” to anyone who reveals the truth about Capitol Hill corruption - that sleaze knows no ideology or favorite party - is not a winning strategy. Politics has a nasty habit of revealing a lot of glass houses where the other side always has a large supply of stones. This goes for both parties on all sorts of ethics issues. And as the polls show, the majority of voters believe Democrats and Republicans are equally crooked.

So…Get. A. Grip.

Finally, a nuclear bomb went off with the Osama tape. For some reason, the imaginations of the Reality Based Community took flight and soared into the stratosphere of cuckoo land when several threads on Daily Kos speculated that Osama was really a Republican in disguise, a Rovian creation that coincidentally always seemed to emerge whenever Republicans were in trouble for one thing or another.

Since from the moonbat perspective, the Republicans are always in trouble - that some issue or news story will finally bring down King George and his minions - one would think that after being so wrong, so many times, on so many “scandals,” each one a dead certainty to prove to be Bush’s undoing, they would learn from their mistakes. No such luck.

At any rate, after convincing themselves that Osama was a Republican plant, it seemed to escape their notice that Osama’s entire rant could have come from the fertile imagination and ample gut of His Rotundness, Michael Moore. As I said below, the left is just too dense to recognize how much they have in common with the mass murderer.

And then Chrissy Matthews made the mistake of actually pointing out that Osama “sounds like an over the top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore…” on Hardball last night. That did it. Even the perspicacious Peter Daou went bananas saying ” “Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh” — “Bin Laden sounds like Bill O’Reilly”– “Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson” — “Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis” — “Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin”… and how would you Republicans like them apples?

Peter, God bless him, completely misses the point. No one in their right mind would say that Osama sounds like any of those conservatives because not one thing Bin Laden said remotely resembled anything ever uttered by any of those worthies. And to make the comparison only shows that, in fact, the left recognizes very well that Osama was spouting their talking points. To prove it, take any day’s postings and diaries at Daily Kos and I guarantee you will be able to match what Osama said with what is said on that “mainstream” Democratic site.

The fact that liberals feel no shame about having a mass murdering thug agreeing with them (and being clueless about why) was highlighted by Senator Joe Biden who, in response to Chrissy Matthews Michael Moore observation had this to say:

“I think this is just to reinforce sort of the stereotypical negative images of us in the Muslim world. That’s why I really think this is much more directed toward the Muslim world…”

The unspoken question and answer here is how did the Muslims get to thinking this way about America? It couldn’t be this kind of traitorous language used by liberals in everything they write, everything they say, and everything they think now, could it?

The Osama tape brings liberals face to face with the consequences of their stupidity. Their wild conspiracy theories, their deranged hatred of the President, their constant caterwauling about how badly the war is going (despite all the evidence to the contrary), and their cockeyed notions of Osama himself will show anyone with an ounce of objectivity that the deadliest enemy of the United States agrees with them. They cannot escape it. They cannot deny it. They can only try and change the subject.

I hope you lefties have a better day today. And I’ll bet more than a few of them are saying to themselves…

Thank God it’s Friday.

We’ve all seen the sneering challenge from liberal loons for someone to show them where our national security was damaged as a result of the NSA leaks. This challenge has two wonderful advantages for the moonbats:

1. In order to prove there has been damage to national security, the actual workings of the NSA program along with many technical details would have to be exposed. Since the idiots know the government will never do this because by doing so it would compound the damage, they can smugly claim that the program wasn’t necessary.

2. If the government did expose the program to answer their loony challenge, the galoots could then claim the Administration was “playing politics” with national security and skewer Bush for that.

Since we can then safely ignore the braying jackasses on the left with regards to this issue, for those of use who are more serious about the national security damage caused by the NSA leaks, here’s Orin Kerr who took information from the James Risen book and demonstrated just a couple of ways al Qaeda (and others) can now adjust their communications protocols to make it more difficult for the NSA to keep track of them:

Finally, and relatedly, the details of the program from Risen’s book arguably explains the national security interest in keeping the domestic surveillance program a secret. It’s not that terrorists may suddenly realize that they may be monitored; that argument never made much sense, as every member of Al-Qaeda must know that they may be monitored. Rather, I suspect the security issue is twofold. In the short term, terrorist groups now know that they can stand a significantly better chance of hiding their communications from the NSA by choosing communications systems that don’t happen to route through the U.S. And in the long term, some countries may react to the disclosures of the program by redesigning their telecommunications networks so less traffic goes through the United States. The more people abroad know that the NSA can easily watch their communications routed through the U.S., the less people will be willing to route their communications through the U.S. Cf. Bruce Hayden’s comment. No doubt it was a long-term priority of the NSA to ensure that lots of international communications traffic was routed through the U.S., where the NSA could have much better access to it. Indeed, Risen’s book more or less says this. The disclosure of the program presumably helps frustrate that objective.

So, thanks are due to our friends at the New York Times and the arrogant, unelected, and self-righteous leakers who made this story possible. They have the advantage over the rest of us in that when the next terrorist attacks occur, they will be comforted with the knowledge that they did their best to promote an absolutist position on the Constitutional rights of al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers here in the United States.

I wonder how eager they would be to meet with the families of people lost in any attack? And I wonder how hollow their smug, arrogant, self-righteous talk about “rights” would sound to people whose loved ones may have been saved if such an attack could have been prevented?

As we are constantly reminded by liberals themselves, the left in this country is made up of “reality based” citizens, people who are grounded not in faith but in reason and rationality. We are also told that liberals are the smartest, the most compassionate, the fairest, and the sharpest among all of us. In short, liberals are simply “Good” with a great big capital “G.”

Of course, if they are indeed “reality based” we never seem to get an explanation as to why belief in New Age nostrums like the magic properties of pyramids, or talking with animals, or belief in astrology all seem to be part of the cultural hooey propagated by the more enlightened leftists among us. I guess “reality” has its limits even for liberals.

That said, one thing the left has been very good at these past years is mind reading. Also, remote viewing. And have you ever met a liberal that doesn’t exhibit many of the same characteristics of a fortune teller? They themselves think that they have unquestioned psychic ability. But given their track record in political soothsaying as well as divining the future of Iraq, the best one could say is that the jury is still out on that one.

Take your average lefty. The soon-to-be-replaced Armando at Daily Kos will do. Here’s one liberal who has used his extraordinary second sight to condemn the NSA intercept program before any of the details regarding exactly how it works have been made public:

We are not debating “how much power we should cede the White House.” There is no debate. The Constitution provides for that. Last I looked, no one has proposed a constitutional amendment.

On Bush’s illegal domestic warrantless surveillance, no one is debating how to “strike a balance between civil liberties and national security.” That debate is the Patriot Act debates - the previous one in 2002 and the current one raging.

Indeed, there is no real debate about the Bush Administration’s illegal acts. No serious person is adopting or defending the nonsensical views of John Yoo and Dick Cheney that the War on Terror has made Bush King. The defenses are preposterous and everyone who knows a little bit about the subject knows there is no serious debate.

If my stockbroker had this kind of soothsaying ability, I would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

The phrase that really jumps out at those of us who are members of the non-reality based community here is “illegal domestic warrantless surveillance.” The fact that no determination has been made that it is “illegal” (in fact, the Justice Department, lawyers at NSA and the FBI, as well as White House lawyers all concluded the program was legal), or that it targeted solely “domestic” entities (in fact the program targets foreign subjects who communicate with people in this country), or that the entire intercept program was “warrantless” (in fact, no one knows jack crap about this aspect of the program), and that it was a “surveillance” program (no one knows jack crapola about the technical details so that saying it was a surveillance program is just plain guessing) - all this can mean only one thing; Armando should get in immediate contact with the James Randi Educational Foundation and agree to submit himself to scientific testing regarding his psychic abilities. The Foundation will give:

a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

By my own calculations, Armando has shown evidence of having psychic ability, remote viewing acumen, attributes of a soothsayer, and perhaps even a knack for palm reading. These powers may not be unusual among liberals which is why Armando isn’t bragging about them. But for the rest of us mere mortals, it’s like, you know, magic!

Maybe Armando will give me the name of a good liberal stockbroker. I could use some help after all that dough I invested in Air America….

It used to be the quickest way to notoriety in this country was to strip down to your birthday suit and run in front of cameras covering some nationally televised event like the Academy Awards or the Super Bowl

My how times have changed.

In the last few years we’ve seen that the quickest way to get your name in the paper and your face plastered all over TV is to be the victim of a “hate crime” carried out by wicked conservatives or, better yet, attest to some action by the Bush Administration that smacks of dictatorship.

Recently, we’ve witnessed the edifying spectacle of people caterwauling about “oppression” only to find out later (after the camera lights have been turned off) that these “victims” are lying through their teeth:

* A gay student claiming harassment and vandalism was found to be perpetrating the incidents herself.

* A black student’s apartment door is vandalized with racist comments. Guess who it turns out wrote them?

* A Muslim store is burned down. CAIR screams racism. Cops arrest Muslim store owner for arson.

* A college professor vandalizes her own car with anti-homosexual slogans. Gets a year in the slammer for filing a false police report.

* Numerous racial incidents called hate crimes that turn out to be bogus.

Hate crimes are one thing. Real crimes carried out against blacks, gays, and ethnics are diminished as a result of few liberals who want to stick it to whites, or conservatives, or just America in general while basking in the glow of their victimhood. Besides, we all know that somewhere, sometime, these incidents could have happened in America. Who really cares if liberals create some guerrilla theater to highlight the “injustice” of the system?

The latest hoax perpetrated by liberals involves a case that smelled to high heaven from the get go. A UMass-Dartmouth student claimed that she was visited by FBI agents after checking out Mao Tse Tung’s tiresome Little Red Book from the library:

NEW BEDFORD — A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung’s tome on Communism called “The Little Red Book.”

Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library’s interlibrary loan program.

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand’s class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents’ home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a “watch list,” and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

First, the myth that the Patriot Act allows the government to keep track of library loans is now so well established that it will be impossible to debunk. To those who still believe such nonsense, I suggest you get a life or, failing that, READ THE DAMN THING AND CONFIRM IT FOR YOURSELF!

Secondly, while this news story says that “DHS agents” visited the student (and that the student was male) other stories have the FBI calling on the poor kid and that the “victim” was a female.

I guess when you get right down to it for a liberal, the facts don’t matter much - it’s the thought that counts.

But man, did this story bring out the heavy rhetorical artillery on the left:

And all this seems strikingly similar to the sad and vile days of Joseph McCarthy’s communism witch hunts, where those who dared speak out found themselves under suspicion and fear ruled the day.

Illegal surveillance is one thing. An agenda to destroy generations of American Freedoms is something else.

U. S. Fascism on the March

Bubble Boy’s Uber-Monarchy just gets curiouser and curiouser.

There is only one problem with this story; it is almost certainly a hoax:

Complicating matters has been the student, who so far has refused to talk. Boston FBI spokeswoman Gail A. Marcinkiewicz said she has been unable to find evidence that FBI agents visited the student.

“We don’t have interest in what people read,” she added.

UMass-Dartmouth is investigating and has interviewed the student but denied in a statement having any contact with federal agents. The book was requested from UMass-Amherst

While probably not carried out by the kid in question, the hoax appears to be the work of some professors who seem more than eager to push the idea of academic freedom under assault in the age of Bush.

Academic freedom is all well and good. But making up a story about anyone in the domestic intelligence apparatus being interested in a student who checks out a discredited tome by a long dead Marxist loon just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Here’s a DHS spokesperson:

Kirk Whitworth, a spokesman for the DHS—the U.S. cabinet department that oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the Secret Service, and Citizenship and Immigration Services, among others—said in the December 21 Standard-Times that the story seemed unlikely. “We’re aware of the claims,” he said. “However, the scenario sounds unlikely because investigations are based on violation of law, not on the books and individual[s who] might check [them] out from the library.”

And Goldstein nails it:

Of course, when lying liars lie about what they are lying about, the only thing that suffers is TRUTH! And whether the facts of this particular story turn out to be true or not, one thing is certain: somewhere, right now, DISSENT IS BEING CHILLED.

Fake but accurate, you know. So please—take the denial with a grain of salt.

Liberals just are not happy unless they are under attack for their beliefs. It is a pathological manifestation of a gigantic need for attention that causes them to mount the battlements, waving the bloody shirt screaming at the top of their lungs “LOOK AT ME! I AM SUFFERING FOR MY BELIEFS”

The Christ complex these loons have is insulting to them, I know. So instead, let’s substitute the actions of 12 year old little girls who constantly play the martyr over the trials and tribulations in their lives.

Liberals are teenage drama queens in disguise. The difference being they aren’t half as cute.

UPDATE - WITH A GREAT BIG BULLET

My apologies to the professors for accusing them of carrying out a hoax. As it turns out, it was in fact the student who made the whole thing up:

The UMass Dartmouth student who claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for “The Little Red Book” by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story.

The 22-year-old student tearfully admitted he made the story up to his history professor, Dr. Brian Glyn Williams, and his parents, after being confronted with the inconsistencies in his account.

Had the student stuck to his original story, it might never have been proved false.
But on Thursday, when the student told his tale in the office of UMass Dartmouth professor Dr. Robert Pontbriand to Dr. Williams, Dr. Pontbriand, university spokesman John Hoey and The Standard-Times, the student added new details.

The agents had returned, the student said, just last night. The two agents, the student, his parents and the student’s uncle all signed confidentiality agreements, he claimed, to put an end to the matter.
But when Dr. Williams went to the student’s home yesterday and relayed that part of the story to his parents, it was the first time they had heard it. The story began to unravel, and the student, faced with the truth, broke down and cried.

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

Now watch the left criticize Bush for making the kid cry.

I’m never quite sure what to make of political cartoonist Ted Rall. Is he being serious? Or, like some demented 2 year old who combines the grotesquely comical of Chucky with the casual malevolence of Damien, does he throw his anti-American fits just to get attention?

Certainly his artistic ability is indicative of someone who has not reached the age of reason. In some respects, his caricatures are little better than stick figures, formless blotches with no artistic depth which bear little resemblance to the targets of his satires His crude, Crumb-like pictographs add little to the thoughts expressed and ideas behind the cartoons, which sets him apart from all good cartoon satirists. Thomas Nast he isn’t.

If Mr. Rall can’t draw very well, he at least has a point of view to share with his readers. Again, it is hard for me to believe that Mr. Rall isn’t pulling our leg just a little bit when he writes things like this:

Congress never declared war against Iraq. As an unelected imposter [sic], George W. Bush did not enjoy authority under the War Powers Act to commit American forces abroad. Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are binding under U.S. law. Iraq did not threaten the United States. Iraq is not the subject of a U.N.-led international police action. Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and morally bound to refuse.

How can we take someone like this seriously? Someone who can’t even spell “impostor?” And how about “unelected impostor?” Is Mr. Rall trying to tell us that the man who garnered 51% of the vote last November is not George Bush but someone else who looks like George Bush and is pretending to be the President of the United States?

Obviously, George Bush is neither unelected nor is he an impostor. This would lead one to believe that either Mr. Rall is trying to be amusing or is a blithering idiot.

As for “violating the Geneva Convention,” it is very hard to violate something when its strictures are not applicable. In the case of the terrorists being held at various locations, while they are entitled to some basic rights (that to our shame have not been defined well enough to prevent the kind of abuse we’ve seen at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and elsewhere) their captivity does not technically fall under any codices or code contained in the Conventions.

And Mr. Rall’s contention that “Iraq is not the subject of a U.N.-led international police action” is demonstrably false. On On May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council voted 14–0 to give the United States and Britain the power to govern Iraq and use its oil resources to rebuild the country. That would indicate to all but the most willfully self deluded that the UN is sanctioning the occupation. And the invasion itself was justified under 14 different UN resolutions relating to Iraq as well as the right of self-defense also guaranteed under the UN Charter.

All of this is well known to even casual observers of the war. But for Mr. Rall and the traitorous bunch of far-left galoots, these facts don’t fit the narrative and therefore, can safely be ignored. And it may be just me but the closer the Iraq War gets to success, it seems that the rhetoric of these lickspittles gets wilder and more out of control:

What are members of the military to do? They should certainly refuse to applaud when Bush uses them as backdrops to his logo-ridden pro-death pep rallies. Moreover, just as Muslim leaders were pressured to speak out against Islamist extremists after 9/11, soldiers ought to step forward to condemn the atrocities at Bagram, Fallujah and Guantánamo in letters to newspapers and other public venues.

The military used to be an honorable calling. Not under Bush. Ethical Americans considering a military career should seek a civilian job until a lawful, elected government has been restored in Washington and we have withdrawn our forces from occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Those who are already enlisted should refuse to reenlist. Soldiers trapped by “stop loss” orders should apply for conscientious objector status (which is difficult to obtain) or refuse deployment based on the unlawful order principle. And if all else fails, there’s always desertion.

Mr. Rall writes as if he is under some kind of occupation himself. The fact that there is zero chance that he will be arrested and tossed in jail for advocating sedition in the armed forces should give the lie to the statement about a “lawful, elected government” being “restored. Perhaps Mr. Rall would like to speak to a few Democratic legislators who might resent the idea that they also are unelected.

The rest of Rall’s ridiculous rant raises some interesting questions about loyalty during a time of war. Obviously, Mr. Rall could care less about loyalty. And I’m not talking about loyalty to Bush, or Republicans, but to the Constitution and the law of the land which have pretty specific language about not actively engaging in treasonous activity. For that is what we are talking about here - rank treason. In another age, another time, Ted Rall would be in the dock, on trial for his life. But in 21st century America, he is lionized, invited to all the important cocktail parties, and paid vast sums of money to continue to utter his treasonous thoughts.

This brings me back to my original point. Is Ted Rall serious or is he someone exhibiting a kind of post-pubescent anti-authoritarian tantrum? Is he real or is he a caricature of himself?

Given his track record of traitorous and nauseating anti-American rants, in the end, it really doesn’t matter does it?