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,
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
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.
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/640
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
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.
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/639
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?
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
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
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?
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/635
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:
"MySpace is gay"
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/634
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
'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
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
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."
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/633
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
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 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
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.
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/632
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
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
None of this matters anyway, Hillary is getting the nomination but is
unelectable, so you guys have already lost the 2008 presidential
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/631
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?
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/629
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
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
"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.
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/628
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.
TrackBacks To This Post:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/627
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.
Two suspected gunmen are dead in a chaotic shooting scene at
a college in downtown Montreal that has left three people in critical
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
***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.
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...
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!"
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.