The Depths of Liberal Apologists...

On Behalf of Michael Vick:

Aside from Michael Vick's magic on the football field, I differ from the superstar in that I'm not a dog lover, yes a dog lover, and I don't truck with gamblers.
...
Unlike Vick, who bonds with dogs, my charity is spent not on Canis lupus familiaris but on troubled citizens whose rights are trampled by the mob entangled with the powerful. Unfortunately, this brings us back to Vick.
Dog matches, like cock-fighting, differ from boxing, and the death bouts of the original gladiators, in that they involve animals. Also, this rendering of dog flesh yields no taxes and thus is not sanctioned. As soon as it does, dog-fighting, just as boxing, liquor, cigarettes and the numbers rackets, will be legalized and run live on pay-per-view TV along with human "cage rage" fighting.

What a load of crap! Putting down a lame horse is an act of mercy. Killing a peaceful bull is, at least, done humanely. Vick is hardly an "animalitarian". There is nothing humane about electrocuting a dog, or beating it to death with a hammer. Or drowning it. Hell, we don't even execute criminals in those ways. Vick brutally killed these dogs after training them to be vicious and tear each other apart. But as the author admits, he doesn't like dogs, so none of this matters to him.

Vick is a dog lover like Andrea Yates was a good mother, Mike Tyson was a patient boyfriend, or Louis Farrakhan was a lower of Jews.

"I'll Punch Anyone in the Nose Who Says it Again!"

Christopher Hitchens sounds almost unglued attacking Bush because of a relatively simple comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Any argument which starts by "his faith is stupid can't go much of anywhere...

Via the Guardian:

How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To invoke Vietnam was a blunder too far for Bush


The Presidents's crass comparison between Iraq and war in south east Asia was the most ludicrous misreading of history

Christopher Hitchens
Sunday August 26, 2007
The Observer


How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
It also explains the unforgivable intervention that Bush made into the private life of the Schiavo family: leaving his Texas ranch to try and keep 'alive' a woman whose autopsy showed that her brain had melted to below flatline a long time before. Here is a man who believes the 'jury' is still 'out' on whether we evolved as a species, who regards stem cell research as something profane, who affects the odd belief that Islam is 'a religion of peace'.

That all of that, except for the bit about Islam, is completely irrelevant to the issue is really the strong point of the article, and really the rest of the article doesn't get much better from there.

Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam. As my hand smacks my brow, and as I ask myself not for the first time if Mr Bush suffers from some sort of political death wish, I quickly restate the reasons why he is wrong to join with his most venomous and ignorant critics in making this case.

And from there, Hitchens writes out 13 points on why he's smarter about Iraq than ANYONE ELSE. They're really not worth reprinting here, because none of the 13 are even relevant to the discussion. To be glib, let me list 3 reasons why Hitchens should be laughed out of the room.

1) Saddam is dead. The Baathists are not in power. As such, no matter how brilliant Hitchens history lesson is...it tells us nothing. We are fighting various forces..and any Baathists among them are so small in number as to have virtually no effect on the debate.
2) There were differences between the Soviets and The Communist Chinese as well. That they weren't identical doesn't mean they had no similarities-or that they can't be compared. If for no other reason, Saddam and the North Vietnamese can be compared for the brutal torture of their enemies and the deaths of millions. That's no small similarity and is more relevant to the debate than all 13 of Hitchen's quotes combined. And the wars can be compared if for no other reason than that our enemies are trying to break the American will to fight...not to beat our military. Again, not a small difference.
3) And most importantly...Hitchens 13 points don't matter because none of them even ADDRESSES Bush's point.

That's right, in calling Bush an idiot that he completely dances around the comment Bush made. Bush never claimed that the lead up to the two wars was identical, or that Saddam and the Vietnamese were in cohoots. What was Bush's point again?

Oh yes. I remember:

Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam.

Bush is arguing that leaving Iraq would create another humanitarian crisis, by leaving the citizens open to mass slaughter. Hitchens dismisses this by pointing out (Correctly) that Saddam killed his own citizens before we came. So? How would that mitigate our responsibility for handing over the citizenry to al Quida? And he dismisses the evil that was the North Vietnamese out of hand.

I cannot see how any self-respecting Republican can look at this record without wincing and moaning with shame or how any former friend of the Vietnamese can equate them with either a fascist dictatorship or a nihilistic Islamist death-squad campaign. And now Bush has joined forces with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan in making the two struggles morally equivalent.

How DARE Bush compare a corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture to...well, another corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture? Why, that's something that's makes Hitchens white wash look kinda like the way it happened.

The Islamic Moderates

This is from a week or so ago, Robert Spencer, the famous "Islamophobic hate monger", who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth About Muhammad, is on the Laura Ingraham show debating the leader of the moderate Muslim American Society, Esam Omeish.

Link to the audio clip.

So, that Spencer is a hateful bigot..well, of course. But as dear Esam speaks, one more thing becomes clear about Spencer.
He's 100% right.

During the course of the interview Emar admits the following things:
1. The Muslim American Society has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
2. Emar Omeish and the MAS are working to "educate" Americans about Shari'a law, and are trying to get us to impliment it on ourselves.
3. Emar's female family members wear the habib, and he sees no way for a woman to respect herself while being "uncovered".
4. He has no problem with lying about Shari'a and ridiculously claims that Shari'a law "respects women", despite the fact that, without a single exception, in every country that Shari'a is law...women suffer honor killings, female genetal mutilation and are less than 1/2 a man legally.
5. And Most significantly, he sees no problem with being associated with groups with terrorist ties and FREELY admits, seemingly with pride, that all Muslim groups that matter have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, or other such groups.

This is a "moderate". Seemingly, the only distinction from the militants is that they wish to slowly introduce this and subvert us while we are unawares until we submit willingly, while the militants wish to kill us til we surrender.

Same goal. Different means.

No wonder people call Spencer a racist. If they had to debate him on the merits...people would start demanding deportations of Muslims en masse.

CAIR Shows it's Fangs

H/T SayAnything:



Ibraham Hooper's nonsense is so bad that even Tucker Carlson has to call him on it. When Carlson won't give him his free pass on the ludicrous claim that CAIR should be able to drag anyone into court for reporting suspicious behavior, because that's "racial profiling" or they have "impure motives", CAIR's head goes off on an insane KKK tirade. Comparing people legitimately in fear of their flying companions' behavior to a violent racist may make leftist fools nod in agreement, but it does naught but alienate rational people.

Tucker hits it right on the head when he claims this is to try and silence those who would speak up against any Muslim. But the comparison has some validity even if he gets it backwards. This is much like David Duke walking onto a plane and making remarks about killing black people, then getting angry when some black guy reports him to the flight attendant.
Unfortunately, if the imams are indeed innocent of the charges against them (doubtful in and of itself), they hurt their case by running to CAIR, and suing the people who they claim erroneously ousted them. If Islam is so misunderstood...why not use this as an example to inform people, instead of file frivilous lawsuits?

It's hard to believe that this was anything other than ANOTHER opportunity to drum up a fake controversy, and intimidate potential opponents. It's all CAIR ever does. From the idiocy that 24 would cause Muslim violence, to the lawsuits against Anti-CAIR, the group does little more than strong arm critics into submission. That the flying imams ran first to CAIR...that tells us exactly what happened on that flight. And it tells us just what the purpose of this whole charade was.

Who Needs Protection for Doing the Right Thing?

Democrats seek to water down provisions that would protect whistle blowers against lawsuits from those they report.

From the Washington Post:

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

This John Doe Legislation was proposed after the Flying Imams incident, and the subsequent threatened lawsuit. The idea being that anyone who reported suspicious behavior shouldn't be able to be sued after the fact.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.
...
“I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

But in true Democrat fashion-being Politically Correct is more important than keeping the public safe:

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation for fear it would lead to racial profiling.

Of course, MUSLIMS MUST BE PROTECTED! AT ALL COSTS!
You know, even if they're acting illegally, or just to terrify the other passengers.
This is so stupid it makes my head hurt. People who are acting suspiciously should be reported. And if they're doing nothing wrong, it teaches them not to act like that in the future. It MAY be that the guy next door is just looking in the window of your neighbors house to see if their best friend is home. They also could be a robber looking to steal everything they own.

But if you can get sued for being wrong...will you call the cops?