Posts Tagged ‘still angry left’

Looks like one more frivolous lawsuit has bit the dust:

The ACLU went down in defeat today. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mojave Cross can stay.
(Why this had to go so far in the first place is beyond belief.)

It’s a good thing that the American Left is keeping doing their best to protest us from the real threats in the world.

Now that this is a case that is no longer pending perhaps we can ask whoever the president nominates to the high court how they would have voted on it. It will be fun to find out.

Update: Fox reports it was of course 5-4. That question looks even more relevant doesn’t it?

I haven’t had much time for fun lately, I’ve missed game night more than I’ve made it. I haven’t played Civ IV in I don’t remember how long, I’ve got 5 different books I have to finish and review.

So tweaking Charles Johnson is about as far down my list of things to do as you can get, but Tim Blair either has his time organized better or has less to do because he took a trip down memory lane yesterday to remind Mr. Johnson of his own past:

Born-again leftoid Charles Johnson denounces the “tidal wave of right wing nuttiness directed at Barack Obama”. Fair enough, in several cases; that birther obsession, for one, is downright crazy. But it’s a little rich for flippy Charlie to rail against “Obama Derangement Syndrome” when for several recent years Johnson himself was a serious sufferer. Following are a few items by Charles on Obama, all posted before Obama had even won the Democrat nomination to run for President

Even better than the list is the point he makes in updates:

From the right? Son, check your own sources in all the links below. You cited the New York Times, the Associated Press, Andrew Sullivan, the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, among others, and used these as evidence of Obama’s unfitness for office. You weren’t running right-wing talking points. You were attempting to generate them.

That sure sounds familiar:

It’s very interesting but it would appear that from the time that Media matters backed Charles in his dispute with Beck Charles hasn’t had a tagged post going after media matters for anything. Nor the Daily Kos for that matter, and only one tagged moonbats. (it was a good one)

And no tagged post hitting Media Matters Godfather George Soros for over a year.

He once talked about the six degrees of George Soros, and now it’s only one.

It’s rather amazing that for all that time these guys haven’t don’t anything weird enough for Charles to post and illustrate, and even the one moonbat post concerns stuff done in years past.

Have they suddenly become all sane? Have they all suddenly decided to support the troops? Have they all suddenly decided to support Israel?

Change we can believe it! Well Charles believes it anyways.

BTW is it too late to say that Robert Stacy won their fight hands down?

Credit where credit it due though, he was on the right side of the South Park issue so perhaps there is still hope.

One thing that has really struck me about the Arizona Law has been the almost united media reaction of how dare they.

They are beating their breasts, calling them Nazis, vowing not to do business in Arizona and posturing themselves to prove how pure they are on civil rights by bravely standing in opposition to the people of Arizona and their police.

Yet they won’t show a clip of Southpark without censoring Mohammed’s image.

That is why I call them the media human shields. Like the one’s in Iraq they “bravely” stood up to American troops fully knowing that they were in no danger from them. The media likewise will bravely stand up to Arizona police and voters because they know their “bravery” puts them in absolutely no danger.

They will however not stand up to radical Islam for the same reason why those same human shields would not go to Israel during rocket attacks nor during China during protest. They know the difference between real danger and posturing and won’t risk their necks.

My arch enemy friend Chris asked a reasonable question in comments on my Bryon York post. To Wit:

Pete, what circumstances would give an officer reasonable suspicion that a person was not a legal resident?

It’s the type of question that the media is all over today, it deserves an answer so here it comes.

You are asking the wrong person, let me explain why:

One of the things you learn in a job is how to recognize signs, for example, when debuging a system certain performance signs or browser actions will indicate a spyware issue. Others will indicate that temp files haven’t been cleaned out since sometime the Red Sox won the Series. I’ve found after a decade of doing this that I can watch a system for several minutes and have a pretty good idea what is going wrong.

This is true in any good profession or hobby. Mike the butcher can recognize the differences between different grades of meat in the shop. Bob the hardware guy knows a good door from a cheap one. Marge at ZuZu’s Petals knows a good flower from a bad one. Bill at the Border Grille & Bar knows the difference between a tomato that can be used in a salad, a sandwich or a salsa and one that is only usable during a bad performance onstage.

Likewise a police officer who has been trained in law enforcement and spending years or decades in an area where they’ve had to deal with illegal immigration on a daily basis would recognize things that you or I, not having having had said experience would not even think of looking for.

But Pete you say, we can’t trust the police to enforce the laws fairly. We can’t? Look at the record. Do you feel intimidated by the police in town? Do you feel scared or worried. They have all kinds of legal authority over you yet you don’t quake in fear? Why are you so ready to trust your local police but are unwilling to allow people from Arizona that same courtesy? Because they are different from you? Because they are republicans and/or conservatives? Because they are as Larry Baer called the tea party people “Stupid White People”? Talk about profiling!

Lets look at the record in one high visibility area. The police forces in the United States in cooperation with Federal and Homeland security have managed to successfully defend this nation from terrorist threats without the curtailing of individual rights particularly of American Muslims.

Can the American Muslim community honestly say their ability to work, or worship or live have been curtailed over the years? I think not. Can anyone rightly say that their ability to protest the war and call out President Bush was unreasonably restricted? It is to laugh.

I also think it is facetious to think that with national attention upon them said police are going to act capriciously when their jobs and futures are at stake, particularly in this economy. The ACLU, La Raza, Al Sharpton, The Free Muma, ANSWER, ACORN et/al and other who make their living ambulance chasing are drooling at the chance to catch them overstepping their authority. These cops know the score if you don’t realize that the you have not paid attention to our litigious society nor to the politics of the left.

So no I don’t know what would constitute a reasonable suspicion but the officers enforcing the law will, and if anyone is victimized by an officer going overboard there will be a plethora of lawyers and media to go after them that Ken Gladney never has and never will see after being beaten on film.

That’s why I and others don’t take people who are willing to call Arizona a police state seriously. They wouldn’t know a police state if it hit them upside the head and are only interested in feeling better about their self righteousness. Perhaps they should take a closer look at what is happening just across the border these days.