Month: April 2009

The Charles Johnson, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller feud…. A Follow up

This is a follow up to a posting that I made a while back about the running feud between Charles Johnson against Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and a few other players.

I realize that no matter how I phrase this posting; someone is going to be offended or is going to hate me to the point of wanting to see my death. I mean, in this sort of a damned thing, you cannot win. If you say anything that one of the parties dislikes, you will be smeared and forced to take a side in the argument. When I lost my other blog to a hacking job; by somebody who was angered about comment that I made about a person on another blog, which was a horrific misstep on my part, which I did and still do readily admit. I made a promise to myself, that I would never engage in Blog wars or any other sort of nonsense.

However, I believe it is important to be clear where I stand; and because of this, I am going to make my feelings clear…

I was contacted by Dr. Robert Spencer about my initial posting. We discussed what I wrote and how I phrased my posting. He did ask me some very pointed questions and I answered honestly, I commend him for writing and asking. Because of this I feel the important need to clear the air.

It appears that Charles Johnson is playing a little game; a deadly game, that hurts people, smears them and makes them into something that they are not. This, I am afraid is wrong. That game is called “guilt by association.” This is a game that liberals play, especially when they are trying to further their agenda of identity politics. It appears that Mr. Johnson is now trying to smear Pat Buchanan, he seems to believe, for whatever foolish reason; that Pat Buchanan is an Anti-Semite. This is nothing more than a classic liberal smear. That’s right, I question the very idea that Charles Johnson is even a Conservative.

For the record, I have zero against Israel, Jews or Judaism. I do however, reject the Zionist movement, on Biblical theological basis only. (See 2 Corinthians 6:14-18) I have Zero against those who choose to practice Islam. However, I reject Islam as a false religion, and those who practice it, as lost and in need of Salvation, that comes only by Jesus Christ. The same goes for those who reject Christ and follow strictly after of the Law of Moses. (See John 14:4-11 and John 10:22-38 and Galatians 3:6-18)

Now, I will be the first to admit that some of the postings over at Pamela Geller’s Blog are, at times, borderline hysteria and could be interpreted by some as Anti-Islamic. However, for Charles Johnson to simply smear someone, because they are associated with a particular group is, in my opinion, unfair and is borderline libelous. I suppose that someone like me would be labeled Anti-Semite by Johnson as well, because of my issues with the Zionist Movement and its influence on the foreign policy of United States. If that is the badge that Mr. Johnson wants to hang on me; fine, I will wear it, I make no apologies for thinking and believing that the Capital of the United States of America is Washington D.C. and not Tel Aviv, Israel. If the Neo-Conservative and Liberal thought police want to try and smear me on this one, fine.

While my initial posting might have sounded like I was praising Charles Johnson, I was not, at all. It was simply lamenting the fact that people, who are supposedly opposed to Islamic fascism, were engaging in a bitter feud. However, since that posting, it seems that Charles Johnson wants to go after people like Michelle Malkin and others, who are in support of the combating of Terrorism and Islamic Fascism. This is totally unacceptable, and I hereby reject Charles Johnson as an enemy to America and a Liberal.

Pamela Geller may not like me, because of my position on Zionism. However, I stand for Freedom of speech and against the Liberal thought police. Hopefully, she understands.

My thoughts on Rep. Virginia Foxx and Hate Crimes Bill-gate

I saw this Meme burning up the Blogosphere last night. I was way too tired to try blogging on it last night. I have been, as of late, getting my sleeping habits straightened out.

It seems that Rep. Virginia Foxx made a speech yesterday on the House floor about a hate crimes bill, that is winding it’s way through Congress. Here is the speech in question:

Transcript:

I also would like to point out that there was a bill — the hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay.”

“This — the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

Well, the Liberal funded and far left Media Matters for America is raising a tizzy about this. They and many other liberal groups and Gay Rights groups claim that Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was gay. Thier basis for this? This right here:

Detective: “They Knew Damn Well He Was Gay.” The Slate article went on to report: “According to detectives who interviewed both of the convicted murderers, there is no evidence that Shepard made any sexual advances to the pair — and the detectives dismissed the idea that the murder was the mere result of a robbery gone bad. ‘Far from that!’ scoffed Sgt. Rob DeBree, the chief investigator in the case. ‘They knew damn well he was gay … It started out as a robbery and burglary, and I sincerely believe the other activity was because he was gay.'” [Slate.com, 11/6/99; emphasis added]

However, the problem is that is this right here: (H/T to Sister Toldjah)

Unfortunately for them, Rep. Foxx was correct … according to an ABC report from 2004 in which the killers – Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson – were interviewed, along with various witnesses, law enforcement officials, and Cal Rerucha, the prosecutor. I’ve emphasized the most relevant parts of the story:

Shepard’s Friends Suspect Attack Was Hate-Motivated

Just hours after Shepard’s battered body was discovered, and before anyone knew who had beaten him, Shepard’s friends Walt Boulden and Alex Trout began spreading the word that Shepard was openly gay and that they were concerned the attack may have been a gay-bashing.

Boulden told “20/20? in an interview shortly after the attack in 1998, “I know in the core of my heart it happened because he revealed he was gay. And it’s chilling. They targeted him because he was gay.”

Prosecutor Rerucha recalls that Shepard’s friends also contacted his office. Rerucha told “20/20,” “They were calling the County Attorney’s office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don’t want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed.”

Helping fuel the gay hate crime theory were statements made to police and the media by Kristen Price, McKinney’s girlfriend. (Price was charged with felony accessory after-the-fact to first-degree murder. She later pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor interference with police officers.)

Price now says that at the time of the crime she thought things would go easier for McKinney if his violence were seen as a panic reaction to an unwanted gay sexual advance.

But today, Price tells Vargas the initial statements she made were not true and tells Vargas that McKinney’s motive was money and drugs. “I don’t think it was a hate crime at all. I never did,” she said.

Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of the lead investigators in the case, also believed robbery was the primary motive. “Matthew Shepard’s sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide,” he said.

“If it wasn’t Shepard, they would have found another easy target. What it came down to really is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it,” Fritzen said.

‘All I Wanted to Do Was Beat Him Up and Rob Him’

Asked directly whether he targeted and attacked Shepard because he was gay, McKinney told Vargas, “No. I did not. … I would say it wasn’t a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him.”

But if the attackers were just trying to rob someone to get a drug fix, why did they beat Shepard so savagely?

Rerucha attributes McKinney’s rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. “The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs,” Rerucha said.

Dr. Rick Rawson, a professor at UCLA who has studied the link between methamphetamine and violence, tells “20/20? the drug can trigger episodes of violent behavior.

“In the first weeks after you’ve stopped using it, the kinds of triggers that can set off an episode are completely unpredictable. It can be: you say a word with the wrong inflection, you touch someone on the shoulder. It’s completely unpredictable as to what will set somebody off” Rawson said.

“If Aaron McKinney had not become involved with methamphetamine, Matthew Shepard would be alive today,” Rerucha said.

So, basically, what you have here, is the liberals taking the words of a Detective and a few other idiots over the words of the prosecutors. But that really is not the point of all this. The point really is about the law that is attempting to be passed through the House. Jazz shaw over at the moderate voice, makes a very good point on this Law:

The larger issue, though, is found in the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis mine.) Long story short: When you pass laws which assign greater guilt to certain parties for committing the same crimes, based on nothing more than what they were thinking at the time and the “class” of citizens who were the victims, then you are providing unequal protection of the laws. You are assigning a higher value to the lives, liberty and property of some victims than others based on their sexual orientation, their race, skin color, religion, etc.

Sadly, we have no elected leaders with the will to drive these questions home in the halls of Congress and I’d be shocked if we have any justices on the bench who will call these laws out for what they are.

You see, what these Liberals are trying to do, is get bills passed that violates our Constitution. See what I put in Bold an underlined text up there? When the Federal Government goes in a tries to tell someone, “Hey, you killed this person, and he was gay, that’s a hate crime and we’re going to punish you harder”, that is a violation of our Constitution. If we open the door for gays; we will have have bills for everyone else too. Pretty soon, you will have bills for Blacks, Jews, Women and everything else under the sun. Our nation’s laws should be uniform for everyone and no harder or softer for any particular class of people.


Some are warning that Hyper Inflation is coming

Not sure if I agree with this or not, because I do not believe that we can predict this sort of a thing; but it is a interesting read.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, said George Santayana, the philosopher. But this familiar maxim is being ignored this week by President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill this week as they complete action on the chief executive’s proposed 2010 federal budget. With its unprecedented deficit approaching $2 trillion, this budget proposal is a certain prescription for hyper-inflation. So every senator and representative who votes for this monster $3.6 trillion budget will be endorsing actions that will turn America into the next Weimar Republic. For those too young to remember, that was the period in Germany in the years between the two world wars when people needed wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread.

In a 1993 interview, Harvard law professor Friedrich Kessler described what living with Weimar hyperinflation was like: “It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightning it struck. No one was prepared….The shelves in the grocery store were empty. You could buy nothing with your paper money.” Thanks to the expanding profligacy on Capitol Hill, a version of such economic hell will likely happen here, according to two prominent economists. Johns Hopkins Professor Steve Hanke notes that the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet “has more than doubled in size since August…Unless the Fed shrinks its balance sheet,” he warns, “…inflation will roar back with a vengeance.”

via www.washingtonexaminer.com – Get ready for Obama’s coming hyperinflation.

Instapundit says that you do see gold prices going up, which might be a sign that the tea leave readers are shoring up, in case of a massive collapse. It is an interesting read. Some would say that this is nothing more than mas hysteria. by the dooms day folk. But it is an interesting fact that Obama has pour massive amounts of money into the system. It should be interesting to watch.

Update: Instapundit comments: “Actually, my point was that gold prices haven’t gone up particularly, as one would expect if hyperinflation were coming. Or, at least, if a lot of people thought it was coming.”

I stand corrected. Wow, The Glenn Reynolds commented on my Blog. SillyHypnotized I’ll never wash this Blog posting, ever. Winking I guess he does read his incoming links! Surprise

Local Auto News: Chrysler looking at Bankruptcy

A pretty sad thing to wake up today. However, I am sorry to say this, but I knew it was coming. Chrysler never was able to get their act together; unlike G.M. and get a resolution together.

The Report comes via the Washington Post, I won’t quote the whole thing and I kindly ask that you go over and read the whole thing. But rather, I will give some my impressions from the interesting stuff.

My impressions:

The Obama administration last night planned to send Chrysler into bankruptcy, replace chief executive Robert L. Nardelli and pump billions of dollars more into the effort, all in hopes the company can emerge from court proceedings as a reenergized competitor in the global economy.

Government officials clung to 11th-hour hopes last night that bankruptcy could be averted, but talks broke down with Chrysler’s creditors. A bankruptcy filing could happen as soon as today.

The U.S. government’s attempt to save the automaker amounts to another extraordinary intervention in the economy and a landmark event in the history of the American auto industry.

Under the administration’s detailed court strategy, ownership of Chrysler would be dramatically reorganized, the leadership of Italian automaker Fiat would take over company management and the U.S. and Canadian governments would contribute more than $10 billion in additional funding.

Company and government officials had feared that a bankruptcy would stain the brand, shake customer confidence and erode sales, but the administration said it would seek to use the process to create a new Chrysler company. Its ownership would be divided, with the company’s union retiree health fund receiving a 55 percent stake, Fiat would claim as much as a 35 percent share and the United States would take 8 percent. The Canadian government would receive two percent.

Basically this is what General Motors did voluntarily. Minus the Fiat equation, of course. It is a tough break that the creditors, bond holders, and company management could not come together to an agreement.  The main and good thing is, that the automaker, itself, will be saved, and that American jobs will be saved.

Now comes the part that will make people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and the rest of the far right wing people howl at the moon:

The automaker’s current majority owner, the private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, would have its holdings wiped out.

Now, to be fair; I will report the truth about this holdings company. This company, from what I have read and have been told; is notorious for buying up struggling companies, like Chrysler and shutting them down and selling off the assets to make money. They have done this in past, from what I told. So, while I hate to see anyone lose their money. I actually am glad to see Chrysler being taken away from this company.

Let me also say this. As an Conservative, who believes in “America First”, and believes that business sometimes have to fail; I am not exactly jumping for joy, when it comes to fact that this auto company is having taxpayer dollars being pumped into it. Nor am I happy at the fact, that a US automaker is having a foreign auto company’s management taking over its operations. However, I believe we must be realistic about such matters. We are not living in the 1950’s any longer, we are in a economic recession of monumental proportions, and if we do not drastic measures quickly, we could see a total collapse of the American auto industry. I also know that there is a undeniable truth that “as Detroit goes, so goes America.” Pat Buchanan and I, have been saying this all along; if allow the big three or in this case, the big two to disappear our Nation’s economy would go into free fall. I shudder in absolute horror at the thought of the far reaching implications of such an event.

I will say, as a devout Paleo-Conservative; If we would have rejected the globalism of the Rockefeller-type conservative types and would have imposed strict trade restrictions on Japanese and other such foreign automotive products, these auto companies would not be in the position that they are today.  It is because of the Rockefeller-type, Madison Avenue, Neo-Conservatives, whose mantra is “screw the American middle class”, is the reason we are in this position today.  Further more, it is the reason that the world is also partaking in our recession as well.  Perhaps President Obama will see the state of our globalist economy and will rethink his position on NAFTA and TAFTA and the rest of those toxic free trade agreements that are in place; and impose strict tariffs on imports that are bleeding our economy dry.

Realistically however, I highly doubt that President Obama will do any of that, because he is trying to run as a centrist, or as I like to call it; he is sucking up to the Neo-Conservative right, as they are his biggest supporters, strangely, after trying so very hard to defeat him in the election. Of course, we Paleo-Conservatives know why this is; because the only difference between a Neo-Conservative and a Democrat is the letter next to the name.

The Afternoon Music Express with………….Whitecross

There is no question, I am a fan of classic Christian Rock.  Heck, I grew up on the stuff. One band that really stands out in my mind is WhiteCross. This tune here is from their first Album.

Every time I hear this tune. I am transported back to a much simpler time in my life.

This is originally from 1987; I could not find a video of the original song. Which sounded bad, because it was recorded with a drum machine.

Anyhow, This is WhiteCross with “Who will you follow?”

WhiteCross Official Website

Liberals begin high level attacks on High Level Conservatives….Case in Point: Michelle Malkin

It appears that Liberals; emboldened by the win of President Obama’s of the White House, now have a new mission in life. That mission is to destroy Conservatism, The Republican Party and anyone else that happens to disagree with their political views.

The first example of this; is the ad-hominem, over the top, screechy attack of Michelle Malkin by Keith Olbermann; of whom I have totally stopped watching, since his baseless and hateful attack on the Tea Party protestors. This is a perfect example of desperate Liberals who are losing ground with the public discourse and are trying to marginalize the enemy.

The Video:

Keith’s Yes-Lady in that interview was none other than Margaret Carlson, that writes for Bloomberg and The Week, She has also written in the past at The Huffington Post. What these two chowder heads are carping about, is this entry by Michelle Malkin:
I’ve blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the U.S. as a result of uncontrolled immigration. We’ve heard for years from reckless open-borders ideologues who continue to insist there’s nothing to worry about. And we’ve heard for years that calling any attention to the dangers of allowing untold numbers of people to pass across our borders and through our other ports of entry without proper medical screening — as required of every legal visitor/immigrant to this country — is RAAAACIST.

9/11 didn’t convince the open-borders zealots to put down their race cards and confront reality.

Maybe the threat of their sons or daughters contracting a deadly virus spread from south of the border to their Manhattan prep schools will.

To be fair to Michelle, she does have a valid point. Out of control immigration does bring disease into this country. So does Illegal Immigration. Liberals; when confronted with facts, like this, always play the race card and also do the race baiting bit. Hence the attack on Michelle.

But wait, it gets better. Now, a liberal in Canada has basically posted, what could be construed as a veiled threat towards Michelle:

zerbisiastweet

Who would write such screed? That is the twitter feed of none other than a liberal columnist from the Toronto Star named Antonia Zerbisias. Of course, now that she’s been caught; she is now playing the victim card.

Here’s the little snot-wad’s picture:

twitz

By the way, as Michelle notes, you can let your displeasure be known by contacting the following people; just remember, be nice and respectful:

Living/Fashion/Food
Living Editor: Alison Uncles
Phone: 416-869-4015
Fax: 416-869-4410
Email: living@thestar.ca

Managing Editor: Joe Hall

The main newsroom phone number is 416-869-4300; fax 416-869-4328; email city@thestar.ca

General inquiries can be sent to:
Editorial Department
Toronto Star
One Yonge Street, Fifth Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5E 1E6

Michelle also notes that this woman has a history of accusing others of Hate Speech and she has also accused Michelle of it as well. The irony of all this is the following:

  1. Had a Conservative blogger/talking head/pundit said anything like this about a Liberal; say maybe, President Obama? The fury would be been deafening. Not to mention the fact that they would have been sitting in jail cell somewhere.
  2. I also find it very ironic that a Elitist White Liberal Female Columnist, is now attacking a Conservative Filipino-American Columnist. Where are all the race baiters when you need them?
  3. I also find it quite ironic that the same day that Arlen Specter decided to hang his boots up with the G.O.P., that this attack started.

I will be honest with you all. I am not nearly to the far to the right as Michelle. (I like to think of myself as a bit more of a Moderate…) I’ve disagreed with her in the past. In fact, me and Michelle have had it out in the past. Back before I switched sides. But man, this stuff right here is nothing more than a coordinated attack against the Conservatives. I mean, the Liberals won. What the hell else do they want? I’ve said that before on my Blog. But it just seems like they are not happy with just winning the election, they want to destroy anything and anyone, who disagrees with their beliefs. I know, some of you might think, that I sound like Bill O’Reilly or something like that. But the man does have a point, when it comes to this.

I mean, I guess the MSNBC people are doing thi
s because their rates are tanking. So, they feel the need to lash out. I mean, since the election, MSNBC’s ratings have been in the toilet. Fox News has beaten MSNBC and CNN. I mean, I thought the Tea Party coverage was just plain awful. As I said in my Video that I made, Keith Olbermann was, and I do mean, was, a valid voice of dissent, now he’s nothing more than a partisan hack. He has now proven that to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I mean, Michelle has said things that make me cringe, at times. But this sort of nonsense, like this nonsense on twitter, is just unbelievable.

Something tells me that the next four years are going to be long and hard for the Conservative minded folk in America. If we’re even still alive and have not be shipped off to camps to be killed by then.

Update: Greetings Free Republic Readers! Big Grin Yes, I am a moderate. (Well, somewhat… Worried) I used run a Blog that went by a number of different names. But, why should I tell what the name was? What’s in the past is over. I’m on the right side of things now, to coin a phrase. Winking 

Quote of the Day

The Internet is the last best source of free and independent information left. Think where the liberty movement would be without the Internet. But even as we speak, President Obama and his allies in Congress are attempting to obtain the authority to censor information on–and curtail access to–the Internet. Plus, in the name of “cybersecurity,” they are plotting to obtain the authority to monitor and seize anyone’s personal computer at will.


Arlen Specter is switching to the Democratic Party

Hardly a surprise, considering the fact that he was always a moderate Republican.

A source involved in the talks confirms that Senator Arlen Specter will switch to the Democratic Party, a dramatic move putting the Democrats within reach of two votes in the Senate.

The move stands to put the White House’s agenda on a fast-track, and to renew hopes among organized labor for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Vice President Joe Biden was, I’m told, deeply involved in the talks with Specter.

The move also raises the stakes for the resolution of the Minnesota Senate race, and may tempt Republicans to drag that fight on further.

via Ben Smith’s Blog: Specter switching parties – POLITICO.com.

The  statement via PoliticsPA:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin and the folks over at Human Events give him the classic Republican send off.

Again, to me, this is not a very big shock at all. Arlen Specter was always a moderate, someone who was against the Religious right. Someone who always fought against the Social Conservatives against their theocratic agenda.