Remember when Ari Fleischer said Americans should "watch what they say?" Back then, the ACLU said that was a warning to "remind us how easily our precious First Amendment rights can be lost."

The White House snitch program under President Obama, though, is just a "bad idea that could send a troublesome message." They also want you to know that even though the White House may be collecting personal information, it's cool...they're totally sure Obama won't do anything with it.

But the organization added, "While it is unclear at this point what the government is doing with the information it is collecting, critics of the administration's health care proposal should not fear that their names will end up in some government database that could be used to chill their right to free speech."

Whew. I mean, it's not like Obama wants his critics to just shut up or anything, right?

Right?

Posted by: Slublog at 06:58 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Change.

Urban, I think.

After a year-long investigation, the committee told Dodd and Conrad that it found "no substantial credible evidence" that they had violated the Senate's ethics rules. The committee found that the senators' loans were processed through a special, controversial program, but that they did not appear to profit financially from it.

They were admonished though, to take extra special care to avoid the appearance of impropriety in future financial dealings which personally benefit them even though we the Senate Ethics Committee can find no evidence you actually did personally benefit by not paying what everybody else in the damned country pays for a mortgage.

So that's satisfying.

Ethics. These are not what you thought they were at all.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:07 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Along with educators.

Odd. There seems to be a common thread here. I cannot quite place it. It almost seems as if labor unions are willing to align themselves with despots, and withdraw their support for the common good in favor of oppression and political objectives.

Did I wake up in 1933? Is there some gritty gunk in my eyes? Give me a sec, I can rub it out.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:31 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Considering what a miserable failure “Project Cockholster” was a few month ago, it’d be understandable if the ONT never again took on such a momentous cause. But we’re nothing if not proactive. (well, we’re all in various stages of inebriation too, but that’s only partially relevant.) However, when we see a wrong that needs righted, an injustice that needs justiced or other causes we can champion without leaving our computers because we have a hangover dammit, then we pounce right on it. Maybe after a short nap.

In that spirit, IÂ’m here tonight to introduce you to our latest cause: PROJECT BACON EMANCIPATION. First, a bit of background information:

For too long, bacon has been treated as a second class meat product, even by our own government which pays a lot of lip service about equality and diversity, yet discriminates openly against this gentle and noble delicacy. Yet when you browse their list of “acceptable meats”, is bacon anywhere to be found? I daresay IT IS NOT! Yet giblets are perfectly acceptable.

Even in these modern times, schoolchildren arenÂ’t taught about The History of Bacon nor about its rich cultural heritage and how we as a society have benefitted just by its mere prescence. In other parts of the world bacon is not only hated, but actively not eaten by baconists that wish to take us back to the dark ages before bacon:

Well, no longer I say! Not only will we not allow bacon to slip quietly into the night, but we will stand up (or sit down at the computer if we're tired) and not only speak out with one voice in defense of and as advocates of our tasty, crispy, yet succulent little brown brothers. No! We will go even further. To our elected leaders we issue this proclamation:

WE DEMAND INDEPENDENCE AND GREATER THAN EQUAL RIGHTS FOR BACON! WE DEMAND THAT BACON BECOME ITS OWN SEPARATE FOOD GROUP!

I hope you'll all get behind this effort for universal bacon sufferage and stand together (or again, sit) in support of bacon and "PROJECT BACON EMANCIPATION." Our first step tonight should be to hammer out a manifesto in the thread. Will you sit idly by and not join in this great cause?

Don't let bacon down. It's counting on you...

Sponsor below the fold as usualÂ…

more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:30 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 702 words, total size 5 kb.

Funny, for a prayer vigil, it sure sounds exactly like a political town hall, except without all those impertinent questions from the audience.

Prayer vigil? I just heard a pledge to restrict the growth of health care premiums to x%. That didn't sound like a Biblical verse.

This is what, the Bible, Revised Standard Goofus Edition?

Or maybe Obama's words are being added to the Bible officially now.

Pretty funny that she declares she's on recess to "listen" to her constituents in a forum expressly designed to prevent that from occurring.

Is that all it takes? Who knew. George Bush should have just declared every speech a national prayer and have been done with it.

Instapundit-Snark:

They told me that if I voted for a Republican President, that politicians would use religion as a bludgeon against policies and their critics.

And they were right!

From Techie, the only guy here who commented on my awesome Stones song choice.

The song is about fighting in the streets in the sum-mmmerrr.

Come on. Come on!

Pearls before swine.

Posted by: Ace at 03:28 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, wait, did I mention she's on Fred Thompson's show?

Paid for, she says right up front, with a $500 billion cut in elderly care.

Having not read it myself (and therefore as expert on it as most members of Congress), I can't vouch for her claims.

Oh, what the hell. I hereby vouch for her claims.

What Could Be More Pleasing to Conservatives Than a Post Containing Teh Fred? Easy. A post containing Teh Fred and Teh Baracuda.

She's also alarmed by the rationing provisions, and worries a panel evaluating how much this or that life was worth would have wound up denying care to Trig.

Now, imagine how upset if she were talking about her own baby.

(Ahem. Odd that the MSM which piles on the Birthers for their odd claims never really got around to castigating liberals claiming Governor Palin wore a fat suit around for three months to disguise the fact it was actually a daughter who was pregnant with Trig.)

Posted by: Ace at 02:57 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

Sign the pledge!

SEIU, by the way, assures us that they committed no violence; that video you saw "couldn't be further from the truth."

So what's their side of the story? Oddly enough, they don't offer one.

Instead they offer a video of some other town hall meetings with "Teabaggers" (their word, not mine) yelling and such.

Yelling. Premeditated yelling, in the first degree.

The video purports to show "teabagger" violence, but the most they have on that is a woman asking a crowd to "stop pushing" to come to the front of the room to speak. (To which a "teabagger" yells, "Tell ACORN to stop pushing!")

That's their offered evidence. Some pushing and jostling that ends, apparently, the moment after the woman in charge of the meeting says to stop.

And they state:

Incited by extremist radio and TV hosts, "teabagger" protesters are yelling and chanting talking points that span from radicalism to racism.

They don't quite say that "they say things we don't like so we beat on them," but I'm damned if I can find another defense offered here.

SEIU

We won't stand for "talking points." We consider them a criminal incitement to breach of the peace. And yes, we've all be deputized as honorary justices of the peace by Barack Obama, before you ask.

We just patrol the cities looking for malefactors, kind of like Batman.

Now shut your mouth or we'll shut it for you.

The United States has been politically blessed in that we never had much of political gangs fighting in the streets.

Looks like Obama is willing to sacrifice that happy state of affairs.

By the Way: This was sent to me by someone calling himself "Union Thug." I don't know if was bating me or not; he had a fake email address, so... I dunno.

Anyway, assuming he was on the other side, baiting me, I'm very curious what in the hell he imagined I'd find persuasive in his link.

I was pretty sure he was baiting me but I wrote "Thank you" anyway.

Because... um, it was a great tip. Much obliged, Union Thug! more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:21 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

What? After eight years of that from Democrats? Are you serious?

"We can discuss these issues without being uncivilized," Gibbs said.

Despite reports that David Axelrod, Obama's top political strategist, and White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina told Democrats to hit back at protesters, Gibbs said his advice to town hall participants is to "behave themselves like your mom would tell you to do."

...

"Anytime you make references to what happened in Germany in the '30s and '40s, I think you're talking about an event that has no equivalent," Gibbs said. "I think anytime anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they're on thin ice and it's best not deployed."

Compare and contrast to Ari Fleisher's much quoted, much denounced formulation about overly-divisive rhtetoric (chiding a member of his own party for saying "towelhead," incidentally): "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that."

But now we're "on thin ice," it turns out, according to spokesman of a president who wants us to "just get out of the way," and whose union goons are beating people in the street.

Critically, Gibbs was telling us we all need to be "civil." But he pointedly only lectured his political opponents to be civil, declining to lecture his own side -- which has actually escalated the clashes from mere shouting and pointed questions to ER-room finale beat-downs.

Here's the best Gibbsy can muster on that score:

Republicans have charged that Democrats and the White House have been equally guilty of introducing harsh rhetoric to the debates.

When asked about that, Gibbs said he thinks "the best thing to do is take the temperature down a bit."

How about saying this:

"Protesters attending town halls are there to confront their representatives, which it is their consitutional right to do. Protesters going to town halls to confront other protesters may be well-intentioned, but they're fomenting confrontations with fellow citizens, who, unlike representatives, have no security details to protect them and furthermore do not have any duty to face an angry citizenry. So supporters can support members, opponents can oppose members, but neither supporters nor opponents should start going after each other. That can only lead to violence and further division."

But no, he couldn't say that, because he wishes to encourage his cultists and union goons who are attending with the express purpose of confronting American citizens, rather than elected representatives who frankly signed up for a bit of angry questioning and hooting and booing when they sought the job they ultimately won.

You're on thin ice.

These Members need cover.

We have strategies for dealing with that.

Get in their faces.

We just want them out of the way.

I honestly do not want to see this situation escalate -- which I am currently quite fearful it will.

But the Obama team has to recognize that the "Members who need cover" have a duty to stand before their supposed constituents and take a little heat -- and conversely, the Obamanauts have no right to attempt to intimidate those who are merely seeking a way to communicate face-to-face with their alleged representatives.

Obama and Co. apparently think that it's exactly the same to hoot at an elected public official as it is to beat down a citizen on the street for being so impertinent as to Dissent.

And thus they offer all of their words of supposed conciliation, mixed with crude threats, to their opponents.

Thanks to Dave @ Garfield Ridge for noting the Fleisher line's comparability to the president's line about "getting out of the way."

Correction: Allah has the video, and Jake Tapper's question mentioned -- kind of briefly -- a congressmen saying protesters were using "brown-shirt tactics," so the question as phrased actually applied to both sides using Nazi rhetoric.

However, I'm still thinking that Gibbs was directing his question to Rush Limbaugh, who'd compared the Democrats to Nazis.

Tapper mentioned this too and at somewhat greater length. I can't prove this -- it's pure gloss -- but I think Gibbs is only animated to find fault with Nazi imagery because Rush Limbaugh is involved. If the question hadn't mentioned Rush, and only mentioned the Democratic congressmen accusing his detractors of "brown shirt tactics," I think he would have giggled it off as usual, like the fat little girl he is.

This is formally a correction because, as phrased, Allah's write and my headline was wrong -- both sides were implicated in the question.

Although, seriously, my point still stands. At the end of Tapper's questioning, he asks how the DNC"s ad smearing protesters as an angry horde of "Birth-Certificate Denying" goons accords with his own sudden belief in civility. Gibbs mutters something about having "seen imagery which surprises us," without actually managing to note that the imagery which should have surprised him came from his compatriots at the DNC. He offers them no rebuke, except that lame "take the temperature down a bit" thing, which I still think is pretty much intended only for conservatives.

If Gibbs actually called the DNC and told them to retract the ad to "take the temperature down a bit," he did not mention it.

By the way? That ad?

Still there:

Odd, isn't it, that he wants to "take the temperature down a little bit" but can't exert his fat self enough to call the DNC, eh?

Maybe he lost their number.

He will only chide his own side obliquely and weakly.

Kudos for Jake Tapper continuing to press on this point.

Posted by: Ace at 01:05 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 973 words, total size 7 kb.

Update; Moe Lane thinks a media report has named her as "Javonne Spitz" (as my mind scrambles to block out psychologically wounding sexual double-entredees; I want to change my name to Heywood Janottouchme).

But she isn't mentioned as working for Carnahan.

I'm not sure that's an accurate ID, though. The article specifies Spitz wore a "salmon-colored" shirt, and this hideous beast is wearing something I'd call Not Hot Pink, not salmon.

Still, it is in the pink spectrum. Maybe the reporter was trying to be nice and avoid saying "Garish Ugly Fat Aged Whore Pink."

She looks like she smells like old cigarettes and feet.

A commenter points out Javonne Spitz, whether that is or isn't the below woman, is, naturally, a grassroots supporter with absolutely no connection to any sort of partisan organizing group whatsoever.

Based on her membership in the Cult of Obama, it is even more likely she considers herself to be "working for Carnahan," while in fact only working for, um, social justice or something else that doesn't seem to actually involve job duties or a salary.

More: A Daily Kos diarist pegs the woman as Javonne Spitz too.

Here's vid of her arrest. Now she definitely is a grassroots protester, judging by her not-so-stylish couture.

What am I wearing? Oh, this? It's a Vera Gunt original.

I guess that's not fair. No one looks good in arrest photos. I sure won't.

Why the hell am I spending so much time on this trout-ish looking she-thing?

Thanks to Andrew.

Hmmm... Based on her version of events, I feel bad for her.

But then, I haven't read the police report yet.

At the forum, Spitz admits she was tossed out because she had been taking photographers of angry protesters as they tried to drown out the speakers. On her way out, a man "grabbed my arm and my camera and tried to break my camera." She told a policeman about it, and he replied: "I'm done." She took a picture of the officer and his badge, and "that made them all very angry," she said. "Too bad because they refused to help me."

As she was walking to her car, she saw the man on the ground. She recognized him as a local minister. She took his picture, to the chagrin of police officers, then was arrested as she walked away, she said. She claims she was maced even after her hands were cuffed behind her back. She said the mace made her sick. "It's very painful," she said. "I was crying, hyperventilating."

Just so lefty trolls know: If that account of events is true, then of course she should not have been arrested.

I think that the police report will indicate it's not true, however.

...

A caution: We only have her word she works for Carnahan. Carnahan's office denies any of its staffers were arrested.

However, she could be a volunteer, and Carnahan's office is parsing about "staffers."

Get in their faces.

Our Members need cover.

We have strategies for dealing with that.

The denial from Carnahan's flack here, and a blogger promise that she's "Working identifying the woman in the video." Plus, a pic of her being cuffed.

Note the similarity to Jon Henke's report about Tampa...

Ironically, the only photographic evidence of a physical encounter that the paper published showed a woman, later identified by Henke as local Democratic operative Karen Miracle, shoving an Obama critic in the face.

Via Instapundit.

Plus: No AstroTurfing Here! Obama sends out Joker-Signal twitter for "grassroots grandmothers and veterans and even mothers pushing strollers" to gin up some fake enthusiasm for his disastrous plan by calling a Representative.

There's really nothing wrong with asking for that -- but it is breathtaking that the Democrats and their Spirit Squad in the media would call such a thing "AstroTurfing" when concerned conservative citizens (for real this time) do the same.

Also lifted from Instapundit: Gee, Obama's "grassroots" supporters seem to be wearing a lot of Brooks Brothers suits and silk ties!

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 706 words, total size 6 kb.

Lies, Damn Lies and shit the Obama Administration says.

The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys.

The discrepancy is a result of the methods used. Edmunds.com uses traditional sales measurements, tallying sales by make and model. The government uses a more arcane measurement method that subdivides models according to engine and transmission types, counting them as separate models.

For example, the Ford Escape is available in six different versions including two- and four-wheel drive and hybrid versions. The government counts each version as a different vehicle using guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency. Only the front wheel drive, non-hybrid version made the government's top ten list.

It's almost as if people like things other than what Nanny Barrack wants them to like. Just who the hell do these people think they are?

But hey, $2 Billion more is on the way.

With so much cash floating around...everything must go! more...

Posted by: DrewM at 11:45 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.