Archives for May 2009

Sotomayor: An Intellectual Lightweight

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University of Law, and frequent talking head on the cable news stations, is typically a pretty consistent liberal. That’s why this statement from him is so puzzling. I was ready to hear him give a ringing endorsement of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, he comes out against Obama’s pick. Maybe he’s just sore that he got passed over?


President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice today, and the media is responding as expected. The White House narrative is being adhered to with stunning precision.

The real problem will be defeating her nomination. It will be impossible to do. If any Republican tries, the Democrats will immediately scream racism. The Democrats will accuse Republicans of the worst kind of discrimination. The media will gladly take the bait and run with the meme. What’s more, I can’t think of one Republican who would have the guts to deny her the seat on the court.

The Republicans are too afraid of losing what’s left of the Hispanic vote to stand on principal.

So, the only thing to do is highlight her record. Pour through her past decisions and bring to light her controversial statements. Expose Sotomayor as a leftist bench legislator. Make this a case against Barack Obama. For every mention of a wacko liberal decision made by Sotomayor, link it to a current policy of Barack Obama and use it to educate voters who still see the man as a modern day Christ.

It’s the only thing the Republicans can do. But, it won’t be enough.

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed, and the country will suffer through her policy making for decades to come.

Memorial Day



Laughing At Their Own Dysfunction

You may have heard about the Democrats plan to use a speed reader to assure the voters that the bills they pass are actually being read. Well, it’s true, as evidenced by the video below.

It’d actually be funny, if it wasn’t so sad.

Pastor Beaten and Tased by DHS

This guy is a piece of work.

Steve Anderson is a pastor in Arizona. He’s also been known to harrass people who are in authority over him. On May 10th, Mother’s Day, Pastor Steve asked too many questions when he tried to cross the border back into the U.S.

The result? Well, let the video tell the story.

And it gets better than that…here’s video Pastor Steve took himself, almost like he was prepared for something to happen.

Stopped at checkpoint. Refuses to cooperate. Probable cause to search the vehicle is developed. He is ordered out of the vehicle for the search. He refuses. Keeps doors locked. Refuses to exit. Argues. Told that he is under arrest. Continues to argue. Gets the door forced open and is arrested. Seems cut and dry to me.

Kids…this is the face of stupidity.


Pastor Steve and his wife have a blog where they provide play-by-play of the events surrounding their “activism”. And don’t miss all the videos of Steve’s fifteen minutes of fame. Feel free to browse – it’s a hoot.

Oh, and one more thing. Wonder what it’s like to sit in Pastor Steve’s church on Sunday? Here’s a taste…

Today's Quote of the Day

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, May 21st, 2009.

“If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

“You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.”

Calm, measured, logical common sense.

Read the rest of the speech here.

Terrorist Cell Busted in NYC

4 men were arrested and a terror plot was thwarted in New York City late yesterday. Due to the vigilance of federal and local authorities, a terror plot was defeated.

Authorities said the four men have long been under investigation and there was little danger they could actually have carried out their plan, NBC News’ Pete Williams reported.

James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, all of Newburgh, N.Y., about 70 miles north of New York City, were charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles, the U.S. attorney’s office said. (NBC News)

According to reports, the four terrorists weren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer. They allied themselves with an undercover FBI agent who sold them fake C-4 explosives and a dummy surface-to-air missle.

Their idiocy notwithstanding…

We’re still under threat of terrorism here in the United States. Every day groups of haters are plotting to destroy us. This isn’t a law enforcement issue. It’s an issue of our national security.

Thank God some people are still reacting to threats like it is September 12th.

Thought of the Day

Have you ever thought about how big Larry King’s head is?





I mean, really…it’s huge.

Just sayin’.

Today's Must Watch Video

I’m sure I’m late to the party on this one, but it’s definitely worth a second watch if you’ve already been down this road once before. Steven Crowder does a great job with this.

Maureen Dowd is a Plagiarist

Maureen Dowd reads (and cuts & pastes)  from the blogosphere she so often criticizes!

The New York Times columnist admitted today she included a paragraph from a blog in her column without attribution, something the MSM accuses bloggers of doing all the time.

I love waking up on a Monday morning to find little nuggets like this in the news.

Of course, nothing is as it seems to be when you live inside the MSM “bubble”. Dowd claims that her plagiarism was inadvertent. In fact, she says she didn’t even read the blog she’s accused of lifting. Her explanation is she was talking with a friend last week about what she intended to write and the friend then gave her the following line:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

For comparison purposes, let’s look at the original quote from the blogger in question, Josh Marshall:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Those of you with a quick eye will see that Dowd simply switched out “when the Bush crowd was” for Marshall’s “when we were”.

Let’s get back to reality for a moment. When you talk on the phone what’s the likelihood that you hear the caller on the other end recite a sentence of this length and you remember it long enough to then be sure you type it out exactly as “heard” when you write your NYT column?

Not likely.

There’s no way Dowd innocently used Marshall’s words. It’s not possible. If she was so enamored with her friends words, she would have asked her if she spoke them off the cuff or if she had read them somewhere else. Being the seasoned writer Dowd is, there’s no way the thought to inquire the source would have escaped her.

For Dowd’s excuse to be plausible, the conversation with her friend would have had to have gone like this:

Friend: “More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.”

Dowd: “Hey, that’s good stuff. Can you repeat what you just said? I want to use it in my column.”

Friend: “Sure, no problem, let me repeat it to you.”

Sorry – that’s not the way it works. More likely, the “friend” emailed a link to Dowd which she happily clicked on and read straight from Marshall’s blog. She most likely thought no one would suspect for a moment that SHE took the quote from a blog. No, she probably thought everyone would belive the blogger took the quote from her! Cut and paste, and now the words are hers!

So, what’s next? Aside from the obligatory correction we’ll see in tomorrow’s NYT, will executive editor Bill Keller comment? Should he?

For as long as bloggers have been around, the MSM has derided them as non-professional, reckless, haphazzard, and unethical. Today, those exact words describe the actions of Maureen Dowd.