Jay at Stop The ACLU recently had the chance to interview Congressman Robert Aderholt of the Fourth District of Alabama, in regards to a piece of legislation he's introduced called the "Constitution Restoration Act". Check out the interview here.

Aderholt gives this basic description of what the act is intended to do:

Basically, the purpose of CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts of the United States.

It removes jurisdiction of the federal government from any case that involves the acknowledgment of God by a Public official. CRA allows each State to say for themselves how they want to approach the issue of religious expression and, in particular, the acknowledgement of God. I would argue that simply acknowledging God would be something the Framers would not want the Judicial branch involved in.

Read the rest of the interview here. Aderholt also shares his feelings on the ACLU, foreing law affecting American law, and the NSA terrorist surveillance program.

I don't see who would have a problem with this, except judicial activism supporters and those fake being offended by the 10 Commandments because they need an issue to whine about and it seems God is the number one target lately.

The Idaho Statesman, via Red Orbit has more.

 

I usually like the fact that Local6.com offers news that you might not get elsewhere, but I can't believe they are still parroting the old media distortion about the Toledo, Ohio neo-nazi non-march as a lead in to their story about the same neo-nazi group holding a march in Orlando.

The same neo-Nazi group that instigated violence in Toledo, Ohio, last year will march along Hughey and Church streets and then head north on Terry Avenue to Washington Street before ending at the Federal Courthouse.

....

"Police are concerned about the presence of counter-demonstrators, saying that may be pawing into the hands of the Nazis, who may be trying to incite some type of violence," Trenkmann said.

The moment they throw in the word "instigated" or "incitement", all credibility goes out the window. Hasn't anyone heard of personal responsibility!? I'm sure because I'm laying the blame of violence on the people that purpotrated it, I'll get all kinds of lefties calling me a neo-nazi and saying I'm supporting these people because that is the left's simplistic and idiotic view. And no this isn't a strawman, this happened in comments on other blogs after the Toledo incident. Those who committed the crimes and rioted were blamed and everyone pointing that out was called a nazi sympathizer and a racist.

Let's look back... does anyone remember what happened in Toledo? I do. Approximately 20 neo-nazis were scheduled to hold a rally in a neighborhood in Toledo to bring attention to what they said was the harassing of white people by black gangs in the neighborhood. I'm sure they were going to chant some stupid chants, etc. but it wasn't even going to be a white sheet wearing thing. Before they got out of their vehicles around 600 mostly black youths (also a couple of your anarchy mask wearing white types too) showed up and began to destroy the neighborhood. Authorities made the white supremacists leave before even doing anything, for their own safety.

Over the next couple hours, the black youths destroyed and looted a store in mob fashion, threw bricks and rocks at ambulances, police cars, and police, and later burned down a local tavern after looting every last thing out of it. Keep in mind this neo-nazi group is from Virginia or something, and have no affiliate with the businesses that were destroyed, and obviously not with the emergency vehicles that were there.

There was no confusion about it, we all watched it unfold live before our eyes. I noticed well before the Fox News anchor that smoke and flames were shooting out of the top floor of what we later found out was a tavern. Again, I'm not supporting the neo-nazis here, but we were treated to an afternoon of everyone blaming them despite live video like showing exactly what happened:

Video from Expose The Left

Then for a week or two we heard everyone in the MSM blaming the "white supremacists" for "inciting" the riot. Everyone was so afraid of being lumped in with the nazis and called racist themselves, that they refused to place the blame on the 600 strong mob of almost all black youths.

Worse than all the "incitement" garbage was an AP article that came out on the wires and many of the MSM sites picked right up on it. The headline?

"White Supremacists Riot in Toledo, Ohio"

ABC News was one of the sites to pick up the AP wire story and chose to add a subheadline that read:

Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, Declares Emergency, Sets Curfew After Hundreds of White Supremacists Riot

I emailed ABC a number of times and got two responses. One was basically the "we can't do anything, it's a wire story that our site automatically picks up" line... To which I responded with something to the effect of "that's BS because I saw this exact story picked up elsewhere and you're the only ones using this subheading under the headline... not only that but the AP (obviously in response to tons of emails from readers) removed the story, and many of those who picked up the wire story removed it from their sites." ABC's response? "We'll look in to it"... and then nothing ever happened, and to this day the story IS STILL on their site...

Now tell me something, after you read that headline and subheading and then you begin to read the three opening paragraphs, what image do you get?

TOLEDO, Ohio Oct 16, 2005 (AP)— Protesters at a white supremacists' march threw rocks at police, vandalized vehicles and stores and cursed the mayor for allowing the event.

Mayor Jack Ford said when he and a local minister tried to calm the rioters Saturday, they were cursed and a masked gang member threatened to shoot him. At one point, the crowd reached 600 people, officials said.

Rioters set fire to 86-year-old Louis Ratajski's neighborhood pub, Jim & Lou's Bar, but he and his nephew escaped the flames

(incase they ever decide to take the story down, here's the evidence)

I don't know about you, but if I hadn't already known the real story, I would think that 600 white supremacists rioted and commited the crimes described above. I don't think I need to explain that to you, any five year old can see what was done here. In the interest of full disclosure, they picked up the later AP story that reported it correctly (for the most part) but no "correction" was made. But that is moot anyway because the LIE story is STILL on the site TODAY! You can't tell me that someone can't simply go in and remove that page. It would take all of two minutes.

Here's the original post from Expose the Left (The Political Teen at the time) where he credited me for passing along the story when I didn't have a blog. This gained some exposure and many other blogs quickly took notice (do a couple searches and you'll see the blogs were all over this one.) The beat went on with another post which included a screen captured image. As you'll see there was much debating in the comments of both posts. Many lefties trying to defend ABC, and bring up that the "new" story was now posted, but ignoring the fact that the old one still remained (and REMAINS STILL). They also all kept up the "incitement" bologna without ever assigning blame to those who were actually guilty of the wrongdoing and crimes.

To be clear, again, the white supremacist group didn't do anything and never came in contact with the rioting mob. So aside from the fact that there's a thing called personal responsibility that knocks "incitement" down everytime, the bigger point is that the nazis weren't even "in the face" of the rioters. They came marching through the neighborhood rioting. They continued to destroy this little neighborhood for hours after the nazis were made to leave for their own safety. Incitement? Come on!

UPDATE before posting

I actually typed much of this earlier but got busy with other things and never posted it... I see now that the rally/march was held and a toned down version of the Toledo fiasco occured. For starters, the media are all using misleading headlines, though at least not flat out lies like the last time.

Here's a sampling of some headlines I got from doing a simple Yahoo! News search on 'orlando nazi':

Several Arrested At Orlando Neo-Nazi March

Orlando neo-Nazi rally takes violent turn

Over a dozen arrested at neo-Nazi rally in Orlando

Police arrest 17 as violence erupts at neo-Nazi rally in Orlando

Need I go on? Below are a few excerpts from a Sun Sential article:

Two opposing groups hurled insults at each other across police barricades Saturday during a tension-filled neo-Nazi rally that culminated in 17 arrests.

...

Several anti-Nazi protesters were arrested before the march officially began when pockets of violence erupted, police said.

Seventeen people were arrested Saturday, including 14 members of out-of-town groups such as the Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice and the Southeastern Anarchist Network, said Orlando Police spokeswoman Barb Jones.

All faced charges including disorderly conduct and battery on law enforcement officers, police said.

No members of the Minneapolis-based National Socialist Movement were arrested, police said. A spokesman for the neo-Nazi group said they were protesting crime in Orlando.

I'll let you be the judge of whether the headlines are misleading or not, but I think it's pretty obvious. And by the way, similar to them attacking police, their vehicles, and ambulances in Toledo, it seems they attacked police here too. Were they "incited" to do that? By the way, jumping back to the "incitement", who forced them to come out? Couldn't they have stayed home (in Toledo as well) and not come out to be "incited"? Don't give me the "it's their neighborhood bull, they came out to have their own counter-protest... They weren't just walking home and ran in to a group of nazis burning crosses in their yards.

More headlien fun:

Neo-Nazi Marchers and Opponents Clash

Fights break out at neo-Nazi rally

A couple misleading (and/or LIES) excerpts from that last one:

Fist-fights broke out and police made more than a dozen arrests at a neo-Nazi rally and march Saturday through a predominantly black neighborhood.

Most of the arrests came after fights between supporters of the National Socialist Movement and angry counter-demonstrators, who were upset with the group's anti-minority message.

...

In October, the same neo-Nazi group gathered in Toledo, Ohio, for a march they said was intended to protest gangs and rising crime. The situation turned into a riot in which businesses were burned and looted and bricks were thrown at police.

I'm curious why this article says there were fights between the groups... seems to be a flat out lie, considering it wasn't mentioned elsewhere.

Okay, to repeat, no one is supporting the nazi message here, but they certainly have the right to have their rally and there is no excuse for the "opposition" turning violent. None. A tip for the black people of these neighborhoods in the future: STAY HOME! Staying home would make these things a non-story. But coming out and committing crimes only reinforces what the nazis are saying they're demonstrating against. If you don't think you can hold a peaceful counter-protest then just stay home and ignore these clowns and everyone will be better off.

Just when you thought this post was over, I had to do a quick Yahoo! News search on 'orlando riot'.

The headline of the first story was:

Riot breaks out at Neo-Nazi rally

Obviously more misleading, and it also bled in to the story (as it did in most of these stories)

Fistfights broke out and police made 17 arrests Saturday at a neo-Nazi rally and march through a predominantly black Florida neighbourhood.

But here's the worst media offense of this whole Orlando situation yet... This article contains the following picture and caption:

A man is dragged to the ground by Orange County Sheriff's Deputy's after he was involved in a fist fight at a neo-Nazi rally in Orlando, Fla. on Saturday. (AP/John Raoux)

Okay, so tell me you don't see this and come to the (seemingly) obvious conclusion that this is an unruly nazi being arrested. But wait, we already know that none of them were arrested, so who is this skinhead? Remember the earlier excerpt describing who was arrested:

14 members of out-of-town groups such as the Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice and the Southeastern Anarchist Network

Oh, so this is one of those skinheads who was OPPOSED to the nazis, I get it... but why isn't that explained in the caption? Why do they throw a picture up of a skinhead with a caption about this guy being involved in a "fist fight" at a "neo-Nazi" rally?

The Misleadstream Media strikes again!

 

I didn't really want to post on the new Abu Ghraib photos because they're nothing but propoganda for terrorists and we all know that already. But I see many other bloggers all had the same thought as I did, immediately when they heard about these "new" Abu Graib photos being released. Why is it the media has no problem airing these, but they won't show, or at best will blur out the stupid Mohammad cartoons?!

We've all seen leaders of various countries out condemning and apologizing for the cartoons which weren't even bad to begin with, unless you count the fake ones that some Imams used to start this whole controversy months after the original publishing of the real cartoons. There have been suspensions and shut downs at media outlets around the world simply for publishing a couple stupid cartoons. But do we ever see this when Christianity or Judaism is insulted? No. And do you know why? Because we are civilized people who don't strike fear in the hearts of the media. Radical Muslims are killing people and destroying cities around the world all because of some stupid and fake cartoons.

But remember Abu Graib? Media outlets were in a race to see who could show the most photos, and particularly who could show the most graphic images without "crossing the line". Remember how the NY Times managed to squeeze out 43 front page stories in 47 days! I'm sure there were more after that, but that's shocking enough I think. Especially when you factor in they never did a frontpage story on beheadings by terrorists.

Far left groups have been pushing for the release of more Abu Graib photos for a long time... Why? To hurt our troops. Period! There is no other reason for the release of these photos, which is why I'm not linking to them. You can find them if you really want to. The story was blown up by the liberal media to harm the war effort in the first place, because that goes back and hurts the President. But those responsible for the abuses were sentenced to jail and dishonorably discharged. But that wasn't enough for the media. They need more violence incited by the images to further their agenda, no matter who it hurts.

So this week we have an Australia television program air the "new" images. Does it further the story in any way? No. Does it stand to get people killed? What do you think!? People were killed over the fake Koran/toilet thing, and over these stupid cartoons and that is all that stands to come from showing these newly released images. Jane Hall looked like an idiot trying to defend this on O'Reilly last night.

So everyone has been asking those same questions about the media's hypocrisy here...

Michelle Malkin is waiting (but I hope not holding her breath) for an answer.. Blackfive has a bunch of photos from Abu Ghraib that you won't see in the MSM either. Why? Oh because they are positive, and don't stand to get troops killed.

But I'd like to take it a step further than Malkin and many others. Why is the media so giddy over new Abu Graib photos, but they have never shown us the photos of people jumping from the WTC buildings on 9/11 (graphic images.) Of course I don't think these should be shown out of respect to those who died, and their families. But the media doesn't seem to concerned about military men and women and their families when they show the pointless Abu Graib photos.

So lets see, you won't show the Muhammad cartoons because that is "incitement" (remember being that the media is a liberal one, they have no concept of "personal responsibility"). I can't stand that "incitement" or "provocation" excuse, but that's what they use to excuse bad behavior all the time. Anyway, why are the Abu Ghraib photos not incitement as well? And 9/11 jumper photos aren't going to incite the Muslim world. And we're civilized so it won't incite us, but might strengthen a weakening resolve.

I don't think I need to go on, you get it, right? The point is the outrage over the cartoons is ridiculous (considering the "bad" ones were fake) and the the media is afraid to print them. Yet they print the REAL Abu Ghraib photos, that stand to only get people killed, with a big smile on their faces. Why? Is your media serving you or the enemy? What does that make them? Another quick example that just popped in my head was the staged/fake photo after we precision bombed in Pakistan a few weeks ago. Of course that is just a tiny example, but it's still fresh in my mind.

Anyway, the lefties would have you ignore the double standard of the MSM and point fingers at us for the double standard. But that's BS. The cartoons were something printed in one paper. Those who chose to print them in the aftermath did so as an exercise in free speech while it's under attack in Europe and of being unafraid of Muslim extremists, and the story was/is ongoing. Abu Ghraib has been dealt with and people have been jailed, and showing these images SERVES NO PURPOSE but to get people killed. If you can explain how they further the story, go right ahead... but you can't because they don't. I'm actually surprised that al-Gore didn't personally deliver the images to his buddies when he was in the region (baselessly) blasting America the other day.

More:
Drumwaster's Rants, Church and State, Iowa Voice, Stop The ACLU, BLACKFIVE, The Jawa Report, Dr. Sanity, The Unalienable Right, protein wisdom, HomefrontSix, Red State Rant, Cake or Death, EU Rota, Slapstick Politics, FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog, 1918 News Server, A Blog For All, Free Constitution, The Patriette, RepublicanWitch, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Blue Star Chronicles, The American Mind, The American Mind, Outside The Beltway | OTB, Two Babes and a Brain, Right Minded, Brain Droppings

Open Trackbacks/Linkfests:
Right Wing Nation, Linkfest Haven, Blue Star Chronicles, TMH's Bacon Bits, Outside the Beltway, Don Surber

 

You've probably already heard that the new Sports Illustrated - Swimsuit Edition is out. What I didn't know (and I'm guessing you didn't either) is that they have some affiliation with CNN, because when you type in sportsillustrated.com, it redirects you automatically to sportsillustrated.cnn.com. From there you're one click away from the Swimsuit Edition index, where you can choose your SI beauty and check out her photo gallery, videos, and 360 views.

Anyway, I don't care as an adult man, but I'm kind of shocked that a CNN site would show images with women with a wet t-shirt and exposed nipples. I know these type of images are in the actual magazine, but I was shocked when I clicked on Anne V, on this CNN site, and found this picture of her pointing back at me:

Again, as an adult man, I obviously don't personally have a problem with this. But I'm a little shocked that to find this on this CNN site. I suspect this isn't the only picture... In fact I saw a few others in the 360 views... but with Janet Jackson and everything, I can't believe they would dare do this. On a side note, why isn't the Muslim world protesting this too? Isn't seeing women against Islam? Especially when we're seeing their nipples on a internationally known news channel's web site.

 

The Muslim "protestors" who claim to be upset over the Mohammad cartoons have now turned their anger on fast food, burning down a McDonald's and a KFC.... oh yeah, they killed and injured a bunch of people to. Michelle Malkin's got the story. She's got it covered pretty well, I just thought I'd try to be first with the "extra crispy" line.

image via reuters

Michelle is right though, where's the media... Oh that's right coming unhinged on Scott McClellan over Quailgate. Although there has been in the last few hours a sad development for the Harry Whittington, the 78 year old victim of the accident.

The 78-year-old lawyer who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident has some birdshot lodged in his heart and he had a "a minor heart attack" Tuesday morning, hospital officials said.

Pray that he gets better. Not only for him and his family, but sadly (and shockingly to me) this has become a huge political issue. I'm surprised (though I rarely am) at the viciousness of the media over this. I still think the Democratic politicians will keep their mouths shut though... Except maybe Dean. So it's sad to say, that we have to politically hope for him to pull through. Imagine the media and political fallout if the worst is to happen?

More on "protests":
Hyscience, Super Fun Power Hour, Outside The Beltway, Davids Medienkritik, The Anchoress, California Conservative 1, California Conservative 2, LawHawk, All Things Beautiful

 

Michelle Malkin is linking to a ridiculous story of censorship in Sweden. It appears that a Swedish right-wing party had some Mohammad toons on their site, and after pressure from police and the foreign ministry, the hosting company chose to shut down the site.

Now we've all posted the "dirty dozen" Mohammad images, and they can't shut us down. But I'd like to throw up a couple RightWinged.com originals right now. The first is of what I suppose some of the whacked out Islamists might consider today's Mohammad... Osama Bin Laden. I created and posted it a few weeks ago, with the inspiration of his call for a truce in his most recent tape. I just took it in my lame photo editing program and colorized it too, so I'll be posting both versions. I'm not an "artist", but I occasionally like to sketch a little, and that's all this is, and then I scanned it in to the computer. After those two versions of that picture, is a picture of any old terrorist. It contains text so I don't need to explain it.

Anyway, no these aren't "Mohammad" so it's not the same. But I'd like to say that as "RightWinged.com" I'd like to ask them to try to shut down this "right-wing" site for my toonage. This ain't Sweden. I don't think anyone would have a problem with the Bin Laden one anyway, but I can already hear attacks from even the American left over the other one... but go ahead, censor this...