***UPDATE - While Bernie's site is still down, local NBC affiliate WPTZ has details on Willie Nelson stumping for Bernie.***

At the moment Bernie's campaign site, Bernie.org, is down so I can't go there and get you a direct link to the Willie Nelson ad, if it's even online. I saw the commercial just the other day and I'm not sure that it was ever on Bernie.org to begin with, but it's a safe assumption that it was because most campaign sites feature the TV ads and additional web ads. I fear that this new Willie news may have caused them to remove it by the time the site comes back up.

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Country singer-songwriter Willie Nelson and several fellow musicians were charged with misdemeanor drug possession by Louisiana police after a search of their tour bus on Monday turned up marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms.

State Police seized about 1-1/2 pounds (0.7 kg) of marijuana and two-tenths of a pound (91 grams) of mushrooms from the bus, Williams said.

Nelson and four other passengers on the bus were cited for possession and released, while the driver had his commercial driving privileges suspended in addition to being cited for possession. Nelson faces possible jail time of up to six months and an unspecified fine, police said.

More to come hopefully, once Bernie's site is back up... Plus I hope to post the new Rich Tarrant ads, probably in a separate post, but they are currently available at BerniesRecord.com. Pretty damning ads. For previous posts with Tarrant's "Bernie's Record" ads, see here and here.

Here's a classic I just dug up on YouTube. I think it's a couple months old, but just recently uploaded.

 

For whatever reason, the YouTube user who uploaded this CNN video isn't allowing embedding, so you'll have to watch it at YouTube.

Blitzer excerpts Soros's book, noting where he compares President Bush to Nazis. It didn't take a genius to make Soros look like an idiot over this comparison, so Wolf "So poor, and so black" Blitzer was up to the task. While Soros started out defending his iditotic comparison, he later admits to maybe going "too far". Which is a bad enough excuse when you "misspoke", but come on, this is a book you would certainly have thought about before you had it printed up. Then he later says maybe he should have kept it to himself. No, if that's what you think, by all means say it, but expect to be called an idiot... idiot.

Anyway, big deal, Soros compared Bush to Nazis... what Democrat hasn't, right? I agree, it's not that big of a deal. What I find interesting, is that he bases his conclusion on the old "politics of fear" talking point. You know "Bush is playing the politics of fear", meaning he's trying to make us feel unsafe so that we vote GOP because they traditionally get the national security vote. My question to you is this: Who's really playing the politics of fear?

I can't count the times, over the past few days, weeks, months and years that I've heard Democrats say "We are less safe" because of Iraq, or any number of the President's other policies. "We are less safe" is to 2006 what "Bush misled us" was to 2004. But saying "We are less safe" is the picture of politics of fear is it not? Please tell me where I'm going wrong if you think I am, though I have a feeling this is just par for the liberal hypocrisy course.

The best defense I can see someone offering is "but they are speaking the truth, because we are less safe". But the fact is, that is a matter of opinion. I would, and the president would, argue that what he's saying is true and necessary too. But regardless of basis in reality, saying "we are less safe" is about as political as you can get. Go ahead, check out this news search, I'm not exaggerating at how big of a DNC talking point this has become.

 

*UPDATE 9/17/06 10:45PM - AllahPundit reports that the Bush Assassination movie has won a prize for revealing a "larger truth". AP has also taken note of Hillary's repudiation of the movie.*

(h/t Drudge)

I may not like anything else about Hillary, but at least she had the sense to say this about the ridiculous Bush assassination movie.

"I think it's despicable," Clinton said of "Death of a President," a fictional film that features a staged assassination of the president in 2007. "I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."

I almost hesitate to criticize her because I'm glad to see those comments, but this wouldn't be RightWinged.com if I didn't. This isn't Hillary bashing by any means, but I wonder why we're only hearing this reply now. Certainly she's been asked about her opinion of the film before this? This was almost becoming old news already.

The only other criticism isn't directed at her, but at the rest of the Democrats in Washington. Shouldn't they have the balls to make a statement on this? Is that their job? No. But they sure want to run their mouths about plenty of other things that aren't their jobs either, and they are all about demanding apologies, etc. Hell, just last week they threatened ABC and ABC caved and edited their film. Did they belong in that arena either? No. The point is, if they are going to come out talking about that movie and other pop culture topics, and Harry Reid is going to quote Olberman, couldn't they at least condemn the Bush assassination film?

Anyway, the Hillary love fest is over. Good job here Hillary, but don't expect me to be complimenting you again any time soon. I mean, me, someone who votes for the Congressional "Plantation" owners needn't compliment you, part of the "slave" party. "And you know what I'm talkin' about".

 

This is great:

C&F has more links to happenings around the assclown "Truther" movement, as does AllahPundit. I intend to check some more of this out later. The biggest issue is that there is growing popularity of these idiotic theories, mainly because I guess people don't take the time to check if there is debunking information. The scary music, quick images, and seemingly damning fast rattled off quotes seem to make a case. But plenty of people have slowed it down and torn these pathetic conspiracy theories apart, point by point. One of the best known examples would be the "Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition". Now playing here at RightWinged.com:

And as always I have to include links to this thorough debunking specifically focused on the Pentagon portion of the conspiracy theories, as well as the Loose Change II viewer guide which is a point by point debunking companion to have in hand while watching the crockumentary (damn, thought I'd coined a term). And of course you should regularly visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

...Almost forgot to mention - Check out the creator of Screw Loose Change, Mark Iradian's site where the video is posted as well. Thanks to Mark for the great work on the vid.

 

Yesterday I semi-liveblogged developments in the story of the shooting spree at Dawson College in Montreal by some Columbine copycat loser.

Now we know that he injured about 20 people, killed one, and then killed himself after police shot him in the arm. As I stated yesterday, I'm waiting for Michael Moore's "Bowling for Dawson" to be out next year, after the major point he tried to hammer home in his lying film (yeah there was one before F911), was that America is more violent than every other country, and that Canada was specifically some great model for us.

Aside from the mainstream news developments, bloggers have found this loser's blog and photo album. (h/t AllahPundit)

I don't even want to put any pictures of him and his gun on my page, you can check them out for yourselves. Anyway, regarding his blog and photo album, they are part of a community site called "VampireFreak.com". I'm just wondering how it never occurred to him that he has to be one of the biggest POSs to belong to a site by that name. Actually, I suppose he knew and that was his excuse for shooting at innocent students. I guess the logic goes like this: The realization that he's a total fag ---- Solution? ----> Go on a shooting rampage.

I'm actually, genuinely suprised that no one has come out to blame Marilyn Manson or the Matrix for this. This is obviously ridiculous, but it's bound to happen, especially sense he'd actually been listening to Manson that day. Again, I don't subscribe to that type of blame game, but it sure gives ammo (no pun intended) to those that do.

On second though, I do have to point out how odd it is that these types always seem to be Manson fans. As an advocate of personal responsibility, I certainly could never blame Manson for the behavior of these nuts but I think he should consider what he's doing and ask himself why it is that murderous psychos gravitate towards his music. If you look through, this guy actually listened to a LOT of Manson ("Music" is stamped at the end of each post). Here he actually calls Manson a god, here a personal hero, and here he pledges allegiance to him.

And I must mention this post, where he adds the results of some annoying online tests. He came out as having an 84% chance of going postal and 86% chance of killing.

Now for the icing on the cake. Ace noticed in fagboy's profile (cached here), under his dislikes, he lists "Republicans", "American Government", "Country Music", "Capitalism", anything related to Christianity, and much much more. Shocking, huh? Be sure to check out the list at Ace's post. This sort of contrast with one of his posts where he mentions eatting an apple pie... what's up with that? Patterico weighs in on the dislikes list as well.

Well, time to end this post now that I'm thoroughly annoyed by this loser. What a pathetic cliche he was. I mean, he constantly rants against "Jocks"! What are you a character in some bad teen movie? Loser. Couldn't you have just ODed so we would have never heard of you?

 

(h/t Drudge)

This is not a political story, or really important at all, but it gives me an excuse to tell you what I think about Myspace.

Here's the story via AP by way of Breitbart:

A 22-year-old woman was arrested after authorities say she tried to hire someone to kill another woman whose photo appeared on her boyfriend's MySpace.com Web page.

Heather Michelle Kane was booked Tuesday for investigation of conspiracy to commit murder, Mesa Detective Jerry Gissel said.

She was arrested after she met an undercover Mesa police detective at a grocery store, gave the officer $400 and offered to pay an additional $100 once the woman had been killed, according to court records.

The records say Kane gave the undercover officer photographs taken from her boyfriend's social networking Web page of the woman she wanted killed. She also requested a photo of the woman's dead body.

It wasn't clear if the boyfriend and the targeted woman were romantically involved, Gissel said.

As I said, I only post this so I can make my feelings known about MySpace. I've long had a particular saying I like to use that I think sums it up:

 

I'm not sure how confident I am in these recent predictions, because I remember reading Steve Forbes making a similar one just over a year ago:

Forbes said the high oil prices currently dampening the US economy, which peaked at more than 70 usd a barrel yesterday as Hurricane Katrina headed for the US Gulf Coast, would fall to 30-35 usd a barrel within a year.

'I'll make a bold prediction... in 12 months, you're going to see oil down to 35-40 usd a barrel,' he said, according to Agence France-Presse.

'It's a huge bubble, I don't know what's going to pop it but eventually it will pop -- you cannot go against supply and demand, you cannot go against the fundamentals forever.'

I had cautious optimism about Forbes prediction, but have obviously been disappointed. While most Americans are being told that this is "supply and demand" because China and India are using so much oil now, anyone who's actually paying attention knows that is absolute crap. Speculation in the market drives prices up. Bad week in Iraq? Jack it up a few dollars per barrel. Unrest in Middle East, 'uh... could run off in to neighboring oil rich nations... jack it up more'. "Global Warming! Hurricanes! JACK IT UP! GONNA BE SUPPLY SHORTAGES!" The list goes on. But this is all crap, and not reflecting the realities. We've heard for literally over 100 years that the planet was running out of oil in a couple years and it's always proven wrong. Supply has kept up with demand all the way, and all this speculation is just that, wild speculation that doesn't reflect what's really going on.

Anyway, Forbes may have been wrong, or perhaps should have just said "in 18 months" instead of 12, because as we've seen oil prices start to sink significantly and some of that speculation has come out of the market, others are making some equally shocking predictions:

WASHINGTON — The recent sharp drop in the global price of crude oil could mark the start of a massive sell-off that returns gasoline prices to lows not seen since the late 1990s — perhaps as low as $1.15 a gallon.

"All the hurricane flags are flying" in oil markets, said Philip Verleger, a noted energy consultant who was a lone voice several years ago in warning that oil prices would soar. Now, he says, they appear to be poised for a dramatic plunge.

Crude-oil prices have fallen about $14, or roughly 17 percent, from their July 14 peak of $78.40. After falling seven straight days, they rose slightly Wednesday in trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, to $63.97, partly in reaction to a government report showing fuel inventories a bit lower than expected. But the overall price drop is expected to continue, and prices could fall much more in the weeks and months ahead.

With fear of supply disruptions ebbing, oil prices began sliding. With oil inventories high, refiners that turn oil into gasoline are expected to cut production. As refiners cut production, oil companies increasingly risk getting stuck with excess oil supplies. There's already anecdotal evidence of oil companies chartering tankers to store excess oil.

All this is turning financial markets increasingly bearish on oil. "If we continue to build inventories, and if we have a warm winter like we had last winter, you could see a large fall in the price of oil," said Gary Pokoik, who manages Hedge Ventures Energy in Los Angeles, an energy hedge fund. "I think there is still a lot of risk in the market."

Should oil traders fear that this downward price spiral will get worse and run for the exits by selling off their futures contracts, Verleger said, it's not unthinkable that oil prices could return to $15 or less a barrel, at least temporarily. That could mean gasoline prices as low as $1.15 per gallon.

$15 a barrel!? I think that's a bit extreme, considering Forbes wasn't even going that far. But, I'm going to hold out hope, while thinking realistically.

More of the good...

Other experts won't guess at a floor price, but they agree that a race to the bottom could break out.

"The market may test levels here that are too low to be sustained," said Clay Seigle, an analyst at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consultancy in Boston.

And now the bad...

On Monday, the oil-producing cartel OPEC hinted that if prices fall precipitously, OPEC members would cut production to lift them. But that would take time.

"That takes six to nine months. If we don't have a really cold winter here [creating a demand for oil], prices will fall. Literally, you don't know where the floor is," Verleger said. "In a market like this, if things start falling ... prices could take you back to the 1999 levels. It has nothing to do with production."

 

It's about freakin' time!

Hezbollah acknowledged targeting civilians in rocket attacks on Israel, but said it fired in response to Israeli attacks - rejecting an Amnesty International report Thursday that accused the guerrillas of "serious violations of international humanitarian law, amounting to war crimes."

During the conflict, Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets into northern Israel, killing 43 civilians, seriously injuring 33 others and forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians to take refuge in shelters or flee.

"The scale of Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians make it all too clear that Hezbollah violated the laws of war," Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan said in a comment on the report.

The article basically repeats what those three paragraphs say a number of times, but you've got the gist.

The claim that the targeting of Israeli civilians by Hezbollah was a reaction to their own civilians being targeted is ridiculous. First of all, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that is in the business of killing civilians and that is what they did for this entire war. That's how they roll. Israel, on the other hand, fires at terrorist fighters. It just so happens that those terrorists hide behind woman and children and fire their weapons from residential rooftops. Essentially the majority of civilian Lebanese deaths aren't even "collateral damage", rather they were killed by the Hezbos themselves, but making them targets.

This is just like Iraq. Our troops are less safe when they won't fire in to a Mosque, school, or hospital even thougth the terrorists will fire out at them. If the Israelis were being that weak, they'd have been screwed. They attack the enemy where they are, and it just so happens that the Hezbos hide amongst civilians for the PR. That way they can have Green Helmet parade dead childrens bodies around the next day, directing cameras, reseting for better angles, etc. etc.

 

I guess making Howard Dean the party chairman wasn't enough, we've seen the Democratic leadership make the most idiotic comments imaginable as if they're in a contest to outstupid Dean. And today, Kerry submitted his entry for the month:

Asked if he dreads the prospect of being “Swift-Boated” all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”

Yeah, because you did such a good time beating them back last time. Are you saying that now you've had time to formulate a response that will "kick their ass" so badly, that they won't be as effective as last time? If so, and if you're the one being truthful, why did it take you a bunch of downtime to come up with a way to combat the Swift Boat Vets? I mean, if you're the one telling the truth and who's right here, couldn't you have hit them back in 2004?

And despite the crappy second half of the year, yes I'm still a Red Sox fan, but don't try to appeal to me again by saying that your favorite player is some morphed player you invented called Manny Ortiz, after proclaiming yourself a big fan. Yes I am still annoyed by that you lying pandering clown.

Anyway, John O'Neill of the Swift Vets responded:

Kerry’s tough talk triggers laughter from John O’Neill, a fellow Vietnam veteran who helped found Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and wrote a blistering 2004 book on Kerry, “Unfit for Command.”

“Well, he’s got eight times as much time to prepare for us as he spent in Vietnam,” says O’Neill, referring to Kerry’s short tour of duty.

I don't approve of mocking the amount of time someone spent there, and everyone should be praised for any service. But O'Neill has his issues with why Kerry was there, and how he got home. And of course there are the issues of lying about throwing his medals, lying about medals he was given, lying about being in Cambodia, meeting the enemy in Paris, Winter Solder, etc. etc., all of which came to light as a result of efforts by the Swift Vets. This isn't challenging your service, this is challenging your record of lying and politic playing with that service after making it an issue with your salute and "reporting for duty" speech.

None of this matters anyway, Hillary is getting the nomination but is unelectable, so you guys have already lost the 2008 presidential election.

 

Hopefully there won't be any interruptions in service, but I am working on transferring to a new server at the moment. It's supposed to happen this evening, but I'm not certain at this point.

Anyway, hang in there if you have any issues accessing the site.

 

This is infuriating. HotAir, Michelle Malkin, and others have covered this and there's not much to add because I think we're all equally outraged at the "rules of engagement" that led to this Clinton style bungle. Kerry Sanders originally broke this story, and has details on the photo release.

Anyway, here's the deal. We had an undetected drone spot over 100 taliban fighters standing in formation at a funeral in Afghanistan. Excited Army officers quickly had the wind taken out of their sails when folks higher up in the chain of command said a strike was a no go because apparently our self imposed rules of engagement forbid attacking terrorists at a funeral.

To be clear, there is nothing illegal or against Geneva Conventions (not that ununiformed soldiers that don't fight for a particular country are entitled to Geneva Convention rights anyway). Judge Napolitano broke it down on Gibson today, and to sum up this was basically a stupid decision in an effort to appear civil to people that don't car about civility! There was nothing that forced us to pass on this massive target, other than our own "let's play nice" rules. This is crap. I just mentioned the other day that this mentallity is our biggest weakness and we need to cut the crap and get tough.

Remember the fiasco in Iraq when terrorists were hiding in hospitals, mosques, and schools. They fired out but we wouldn't fire back in. Actually this is still going on today. These sorts of rules are our weakness and get our military folks killed. It's the same as this funeral incident. We try to play nice with terrorists... why? I don't think anyone wants to argue that we're trying to show good will to the Taliban, in hopes that they'll "see the light" or something. The argument you'll probably hear is that we're trying to be sensitive to everyone in the region, but come on. If they're going to get made about it, you know who's side they're on anyway. There's comes a time when we need to decide if we are trying to win these wars, and stop all these politically correct tactics. How many people will now die at the hands of these 100+ Taliban fighters?

 

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

Thank you Tony Blair. Now when will Bush step up and lash out at the haters. No, not those who "disagree" with his policies. I'm talking about the Dems and people around the world who call him a liar and elected Democrats who seem to exist for no purpose but to bash the president and obstruct anything and everything so that nothing ever gets done, and never suggest a plan or idea of their own. I know, defending himself can make it appear that he has something to be defensive of, and sinking to their level isn't usually the best idea. But we've had years of hate out of the left and the media gets an assist, and it's just been too much (look at the polls). Enough is enough, Bush needs to stop sitting back and taking it and hit back.

Anyway, his is what Blair had to say:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a withering attack on Thursday on what he called "mad anti-Americanism" among European politicians.

Blair, U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally in the so-called war on terror, said the world urgently needs the United States to help tackle the globe's most pressing problems.

"The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved," Blair said, spelling out his political vision in a pamphlet published by The Foreign Policy Center think-tank.

"The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in," he said...

...Responding to those who have criticized the White House, Blair said in his pamphlet: "The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved."

"We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them," he added.

He seems to be speaking to anti-Americanism in Europe in general, not just the UK. Sadly you won't have the leader of France talk like this for a couple more decades, once they've begun being fitted for their prayer mats and their women trying on Burkas, and they realize how screwed they are. Many other European nations aren't far behind either.

 

You know, it's a sad day when your city is more to the left than Burlington, VT. Remember a couple weeks ago when I told you how Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington proposed making Burlington a sanctuary city for illegals, but was shot down by the city council. Well AllahPundit has details on the intentions of Mayor Nick Inzunza of National City to do the same thing.

The council doesn't seem to approve of it, however they've all but made themselves a sanctuary anyway, just without calling it that. This is apparently why Inzunza acts as if he's really just stating what is already going on. The San Diego Union-Tribune has details:

Mayor Nick Inzunza declared in an interview on National Public Radio last week that he wants National City to be a sanctuary city, a designation being promoted through a grass-roots effort in other parts of California and the country.

However, the other City Council members are irritated that he never informed them of the idea.

“If he wants to declare it, he can do it as Nick Inzunza, but he can't declare it for the city,” said Councilman Ron Morrison. “We've already done so many things as far as the acceptance of the (matricula consular) ID cards. We've made sure that our police policy is such that we're not out there calling the Border Patrol on people.”

Inzunza said in a written response to questions that there was no need to notify the council of his intent because city policy already prevents immigrants from being targeted for deportation without reason. He said he is not enacting any new laws.

Inzunza said his radio statement was nothing more than a proclamation reaffirming the city's current practice, which does not need council approval.

By the way, there are a number of cities that have already declared themselves sanctuary cities:

Other cities in the state have deemed themselves sanctuary cities, including Maywood, Pomona, Huntington Park and Coachella. Outside of the state, El Paso, Texas; Portland, Maine; and Cambridge, Mass., have declared themselves sanctuary cities.

I'm still confused how this is able to happen. The mayors and council members of these cities are encouraging law breaking on massive scales. Why is it these guys aren't forced out of office by the state? It's not a matter of "disagreeing", this is encouraging criminal activity, and making their local law enforcement ignore federal law. Would this be allowed if it were any federal law other than immigration? I'm just really stunned that this can even happen.

 

*SCROLL FOR UPDATES*

***UPDATE 5PM - Bloomberg says 20 injured, 8 critically***

***UPDATE - A Jewish school in Montreal was firebombed last week... SCROLL for details***

***UPDATE - PHOTOS***
***UPDATE - Only One Gunman (previous reports as many as 2 or 3)***

*UPDATE* - CTV now reporting 2 gunmen dead. SCROLL for details

This story is still breaking, and few details are known, but this is what has been reported so far, via AP:

MONTREAL - A suspect in at shooting at a Montreal college turned the gun on himself, police said Wednesday. Several shots were heard Wednesday at a building at Dawson College, and students told a radio station that four people had been hit.

One student at the school told radio station 940 News that she saw two people who had been shot, including one who was hit in the neck. The student said a friend told her four people had been shot.

TV footage showed students fleeing the building, which is near downtown.

Probably just some random crazy, but it raises an interesting point that goes to the heart of why I will never watch a Michael Moore film again. Before he was famous, I went and saw Bowling for Columbine, thinking it was a documentary on the Columbine tragedy. I wasn't that political at all at the time, but I had an uneasy feeling from the minute the film began.

If you've never seen it don't waste your time, because I'd hate to rob a couple hours of your life so that you could listen to a bunch of spun statistics misleading splicing of video, out of context quoting. It's the usual Moore mantra, America sucks, America is evil, America causes all violence in the worldl, take away guns, why does the show "COPS" only show black people (even though almost everytime I've ever seen it it's a shirtless drunk guy picking up a Mexican transvestite hooker, or trying to escape his trailer with some pills after beating his wife, etc. etc.)

It wasn't until a year later that I thought back on how off that movie had seemed, and what an anti-American vibe it gave off that I found this link that helps unspin what Moore spun. Not as thorough as Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11, but definitely worth using as a guide if you have seen the movie or decide to watch it.

Anyway, my issue is with the fact that Moore keeps treating Canada as some sort of model for us. He keeps pounding this "point" that we are so much more violent than other countries, but using shady methods like using raw numbers, versus homicide rates to account for big differences in population from country to country.

Moore's deception goes from beginning to end, but I just wanted to point out that he continues to bash us for not being more Canada-like, yet here we have an example of some nutty shooter in Canada. Is there a chance that the shooter (or shooters, as FNC is now reporting) is not Canadian? Yes. But my point stands about Moore's deception, and I thought this story gave me an opening to link you to that Bowling for Columbine debunking.

***UPDATE - CTV.COM***

Two suspected gunmen are dead in a chaotic shooting scene at a college in downtown Montreal that has left three people in critical condition.

"Government sources are saying two of the gunmen are dead," said CTV's Jed Kahane, reporting from Montreal. "One may have taken his own life, the other was shot by police."

"All of a sudden I turned around and saw a man dressed in black with a huge assault rifle," she said.

"I saw the gunman who was dressed in black and at that time he was shooting at people. It was probably one of the most frightening moments of my life," Boyer said.

Sound familiar?

Today's incident is horrifyingly reminiscent of another school shooting in Montreal. On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lepine shot 27 female engineering students at the Ecole Polytechnique, killing 14, before fatally shooting himself.

I'd be interested to hear Moore's comments on that. Nah, instead he'll wheel a paralyzed Columbine victim in to a Walmart and then Walmart's corporate offices to throw a fit and make a scene because they sell ammunition. You know, because it wasn't the fault of the kids who shot everyone. It was Walmart.

***UPDATE***
This as the story develops it seems to be a much bigger deal than initially reported. If you're near a TV flip on one of the cable news channels. Sounds like there are quite a few injured.

CTV now reporting multiple injuries:

Two suspected gunmen are dead in a chaotic shooting scene at a college in downtown Montreal that has sent 12 victims in hospital.

Twelve victims of the shooting have been taken to hospital for treatment, including six in critical condition, two considered serious, and four listed in stable condition.

Earlier I heard Shep Smith ask someone in Montreal if Dawson was a predominently Jewish school after he'd received emails stating that. The woman on the phone said "no", but I figured I'd do a news search on "jewish" and "montreal". Well I quickly found articles about a firebombing of a jewish boys school just last week. I'm not saying they're related or that today's incident is any kind of Islamic Terrorism (though I think it certainly should be considered a terrorist act, just not necessarily connected to Islamofascism). But it's important to keep all incidents in mind:

MONTREAL -- With tensions still high over the war between Israel and Lebanon, Jewish community leaders in Montreal promised Tuesday there will be heightened security and increased vigilance following the firebombing of a Hasidic school.

They were careful to point out the motive for the attack is still unknown but said they worry there will be further violence directed toward the Jewish community.

But "it's a fair question to wonder whether or not the gathering of 15,000 Quebecers under the flag of Hezbollah, unfortunately further legitimized by the presence of politicians, whether that creates an atmosphere where fanatics draw the conclusion that violence against Jews is somehow acceptable."

Thousands, including some politicians, marched in the city earlier this summer in support of Lebanon during the Israeli bombardment.

In support of Lebanon? Or in support of Hezbollah. Let's be real.

Security cameras, installed after another Jewish school was firebombed two years ago, were rolling as a man threw a Molotov cocktail through the window of the front doors at the Skver-Toldos Orthodox Boys School early Saturday morning.

So who were the 2004 firebombers? Lone firebombmen? "Mentally ill" people?

Many security measures were put in place after the United Talmud Torahs elementary school library was torched in April 2004.

Sleiman El-Merhebi was released from prison in May after serving two-thirds of his 40-month sentence for arson.

His mother, Rouba El-Merhebi Faud, will return to court Sept. 25, when she is expected to have a date set for her trial on being an accessory after the fact.

Wait, they sound like Muslims, hands off! They were just expressing their free speech and delivering the message of the "religion of peace" to the violent Jewish elementary school students. You know, the resistance! Damn those elementary school CANADIAN Jews and their military killing Muslims and occupying their land.. oh wait.

And why was this guy only sentenced to 40-months, and worse only made to serve two-thirds of that. What is that, like 24 months? For something that is at miminum a hate crime! I wonder if an unhinged right-winger were to firebomb a gay building or abortion clinic, they'd get the same deal? Somehow I don't think so.

Read the rest...

Arutz Sheva at least reports that the incident last week is being called a "hate crime" by local police.

Related - Canadian CEO blasts wide-spread anti-semitism in Canada.

*UPDATE*
More on past Canadian school shootings.

 

***UPDATE - Fonda and Friends delusional, start their own network. Why do they think they have a shot?***

***UPDATE - Brian Maloney the blogosphere's anti-Air America guru has all the details.

***UPDATE - AAR Denies. Sounds to me like they are on the verge of having no other option but bankruptcy, if no one buys up their assests.

While Malkin doesn't have a post up on this yet, she has been following the failures of liberal radio network "Air America" since the beginning, so I'm sure she'll have something to say later. Anyway, hat tip to Malkin's associate AllahPundit for pointing me to this story/spin job by Think Progress. Bad boyz for life... can't stop, won't stop...

NRO mocks here:

Wanting to make sure that no one thinks a bankruptcy declaration by Air America would be bad news, ThinkProgress adds:

The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country’s most successful and widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts — Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance — aren’t even associated with Air America.

Radio giant Clear Channel is so committed to progressive talk radio that, this week, it will announce a partnership with the Center for American Progress, Jones Radio, and MSS Inc., to conduct a nationwide search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star.

Pathetic. I can some up my feeling on this with a monologue from Joe Dirt character "Robby", played by Kid Rock:

"Don't get smart with me, you motherless dirtbag. You've been here long enough. Nobody wants you in this town. Nobody wants you around, period! (Joe Dirts begins to run away) Aw, look at him, fellas.…You cryin', boy? You cryin', boy? Maybe you should go back down to McDonald's and get yourself a whine burger and some french cries. How 'bout a 'Whine-a-ken?' You little sissy boy. Def Leppard sucks!"

*UPDATE*
As was predicted, Malkin is all over it and includes a long link list of her previous coverage which I see as some deserved gloating. Malkin has hammered the NY Times' coverage of Air America since the beginning, and is still waiting for them to get with the program:

First question: Will the New York Times fiiiiinally get around to covering this story? Hmmm?

You might recall that the Times, obviously friendly with the views of Air America, wrote glowing pieces on them even though they've continued to tank almost since they day they launched. The Times has been noticably absent in reporting on AA's continued and worsening failures.

Others:
Wizbang, Sensible Mom, Texas Rainmaker, Appalachian Scribe, Considerettes, Macsmind, The World According to Carl, American Princess