Monday, April 26, 2010

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day: "

Molly Norris has declared May 20th “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” in defense of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. All freedom-loving Americans should get behind this. While initially I thought it was an ironic joke that South Park was censoring everything related to Mohammed in their last episode, obviously we have seen over the last few days that against the creators’ will, Comedy Central cowered in the face of a thinly veiled Muslim threat.

In fact, submission, the definition of Islam, is the apt word to describe Comedy Central’s cowardice.

The bottom line is that the First Amendment guarantees free speech including criticism of all peoples. We are an equal opportunity offense country. To censor ourselves to avoid upsetting a certain group (in a cartoon no less) is un-American.

It is especially egregious because it represents dhimmitude. We are sacrificing our law and our heritage to Sharia. The law of our land is the Constitution and beyond that the natural law granted to us by our divine creator.

Giving in to Islam at the cultural level is the first step towards going the way of Europe. Just as with leftism, the loss of our values begins not with the politicians but with the public. We must stop this madness now and stand in solidarity against those who wish to destroy our way of life and replace it with theirs. You can try to bully Matt Stone and Trey Parker but you cannot bully a million red-blooded, liberty-loving Matt Stones and Trey Parkers.

Let me end by evoking the words of a great many South Park characters: “If you don’t like America, then you can git out.”


Friday, April 16, 2010

Let Them Eat Cake!

Words mean whatever our elected officials say they mean | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Tuesday, April 13, 2010


Coming out swinging

Out of the slammer, that is:

Kristin Davis, the New York madame who supplied call girls to former Governor Eliot Spitzer, today blasted MSNBC for using Spitzer as a guest host last week to fill in for liberal MSNBC commentator Dylan Ratigan. Davis, who went to prison for promoting prostitution in the scandal that forced Spitzer to resign, is now running as the libertarian candidate for Governor of the Empire State.

“Eliot Spitzer violated federal money laundering laws, violated the Mann Act by transporting a prostitute across state lines to perform sex acts, lied repeatedly to the people of New York about the real source of his campaign financing, abused power by directing the state police to fabricate documents, used the state police to spy on his political opponent Nixon-style, and then lied about it all,” Davis said.

“While he has not been convicted of any crime, like O.J. Simpson, he is guilty,” added Davis, who served four months in Rikers Island. “I defend MSNBC’s right to interview Spitzer at any time, but making him a host condones his behavior, which is outrageous.”

Read more:

Spitzer madame blasts MSNBC for allowing him to host | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

ARE MEN THE MORE BELLIGERENT SEX? Men are more dangerous, but women can be just as aggressive. “Wo…

ARE MEN THE MORE BELLIGERENT SEX? Men are more dangerous, but women can be just as aggressive. “Wo…: "

ARE MEN THE MORE BELLIGERENT SEX? Men are more dangerous, but women can be just as aggressive. “Women are also just as likely as men to express hostility—in this case physically—in the context of a romantic relationship. The popular stereotype of a domestic abuser is a man who habitually hurts his female partner. Yet research by Archer and sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire calls this scenario into question. Surprisingly, their analyses demonstrate that men and women exhibit roughly equal rates of violence within relationships; some studies hint that women’s rates of physical aggression are slightly higher.”

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that there's not as much of a taboo against women engaging in violence. In fact, some guys like the tough chicks.

Roger L. Simon » President Weirdo Goes Anti-Nuke

Roger L. Simon writes:

The President of the United States — whose most important duty is to protect the citizens of this country — is publicly abjuring the use of nuclear weapons if we are attacked by chemical or biological weapons — both of which are known to all of us as Weapons of Mass Destruction, the dreaded WMDs.

What are we to make of this and the man who is adopting this policy? Does he hate us? Does he hate this country? What would he do if there was, for example, a massive small pox attack on the U.S.? Send in the infantry? Call in the Marines? Try to reason with whoever did it and recommend they negotiate as the fatal disease spreads to millions of people?
While I agree that this is unwise, I don't think it's exactly what it appears to be. Simply put, I think President Obama is comfortable with this proclamation simply because it's another campaign promise that he's willing to break at a moments notice.

If anything, this should be a warning sign that he's got his finger on the button because, like public campaign financing, this is a convenient cover until he gets sufficient incentive to do otherwise.

Roger L. Simon » President Weirdo Goes Anti-Nuke

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Hard call

GALLUP: “By 50%-46%, those surveyed say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election.”…: "

I wonder if the DNC will have the guts to cut ties with the burgeoning albatross in 2012? To President Obama, the danger of throwing too many under the bus is that the guy in line behind you only has to shove...