California Conservative

AP reports: Many Spaniards were so amused when their king told Venezuela’s president to “shut up” they want to hear the words every time their phone rings.

About half a million people have downloaded a mobile phone ringtone featuring the phrase “Por que no te callas?” or “Why don’t you shut up?” leading Madrid daily El Pais reported on its Web site Monday.

That’s what King Juan Carlos told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during a heated confrontation at a summit in Chile last week. We happily reported.

The ringtone is thought to have generated around $2.2 million for the companies selling it, El Pais said.

T-shirts and mugs featuring the words are also becoming a profitable business, and videos of the confrontation have been a hit on the YouTube Web site.

God bless the capitalist spirit!

Chavez’s opponents in Venezuela are no less obsessed.

Pirated copies of the quote have been popping up in the South American country.

In Venezuela, T-shirts with the slogan in Spanish have the “NO” in uppercase — a call for voting against constitutional reforms that would significantly expand Chavez’s power. The Venezuelan leader says the changes would empower neighborhood-based assemblies and advance the country’s transition to socialism.

“The king said what Venezuelans have wanted to say to Chavez’s face for a long time,” said Jenny Romero, 21, a student sporting one of the T-shirts in Caracas. “I’m wearing this T-shirt to protest everything bad that has happened in the country.”

God bless free speech!

Hopefully he won’t get beaten up and jailed for it. What would Hugo’s Hollywood friends say to that?

Michelle Malkin has more.

RELATED:
Finally, Someone Tells Hugo Chavez to “Shut Up”
Chavez and Ahmadinejad Pledge To Work Against US

One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there’s another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds. The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend’s interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity’s America. To say that their post didn’t attempt to refute Justin’s story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity:

Last night’s (October 27th) Hannity’s America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses with a lead off interview that was billed as “The Truth About Haditha.” Hannity is a college drop out with no professional journalism credentials and this lack of professional journalistic acumen was well reflected in Hannity’s “leading questions” which served a political agenda. (Comment: Although Fox’s Chris Wallace can be partisan, he looks like Cronkite compared to Sean Hannity!)

Hannity billed his interview with Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt, his lawyer, and his father as “exclusive.” He began by noting that this interview would be a response to Congressman John Murtha and military officials who are “trying to paint the story with a different brush.” Before the interview began, Hannity set up the Fox/right wing premise by asking the not so rhetorical question “have politics gotten in the way of patriotism?” Without doing an overview of the Haditha story, he asked Sharratt to explain what happened on that fateful day. Hannity asked Sharratt if he saw any of his fellow Marines doing anything that they weren’t supposed to do. Not surprisingly, Sharratt said that he didn’t. Hannity mentioned the article in Time Magazine which reported that the Haditha civilians claimed they were attacked by the Marines. Hannity asked Sharratt why Time would report that and Sharratt said he didn’t know.

You’ll notice that Newshounds doesn’t mention Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore’s sworn testimony. I posted about Capt. Dinsmore’s testimony in a post titled A Timline Emerges back in July. Here’s what I posted then:

As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day’s events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.

I also mentioned these important details that should’ve been included in NewsHounds’s post: (more…)

Jim McDermott hears the drumbeats of war coming from the Bush administration. After hearing that, you’re probably wondering what else he’s hearing, don’t you? Here’s what he said on the House Floor Tuesday:

Mr. Speaker:

Out of a sense of duty and a growing fear I stand to say that I hear the drumbeats of war coming again from this Administration. This time, Iran is in their crosshairs.

It’s ironic that the alarm is sounded today, the birthdate of Mahatma Gandhi, and the United Nations’ first World Nonviolence Day in honor of Gandhi’s commitment to peace.

Perhaps the contrast between a man of peace and an Administration of War will underscore the need and the urgency for Congress to act before the President orders a military strike.

I listened and sounded the alarm in 2002 concerning Iraq. But the President and Vice President had already set in motion their invasion plan and those who got in their way were rendered pre-invasion casualties.

Back then, too many in the media, the Congress and across the nation were willing to accept a war without justification or justice.

Now, at least, the American people overwhelmingly recognize the tragic consequences of the Iraq war and occupation.

At least one development in 2008 may make this time different than 2002. The Internet has grown exponentially.

Today, credible and factual information is readily available. The Blogosphere is on fire sounding the alarm. And we will have no one to blame except ourselves if we let this Administration take us to war against Iran. (more…)

AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release condemning the Civil Rights Coordinator of CAIR-Los Angeles (CAIR-California), Affad Shaikh, for calling “Senator Joe Lieberman, Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former head of the CIA James Woolsey, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, Lt. General Thomas McInerney, and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Sheppard Smith as ‘Extremist Right Wing Nut cases.’”

I’d never heard of Affad Shaikh before this morning but I don’t think he’ll be used as a spokesman for CAIR again anytime soon, especially if this is the quality of his work product. First of all, using the term “extremist right wing nut cases” isn’t the way to win friends and influence people. Secondly, calling Joe Lieberman, Sheppard Smith, Bill O’Reilly and Jim Woolsey extremist right wing nut cases is wildly inaccurate. I couldn’t tell you how O’Reilly or Sheppard Smith vote. I know that Joe Lieberman isn’t an extremist right wing nut case because he’s still part of the Democratic Party.

I strongly recommend that you read the entire press release.

Technorati Tags: CAIR, Tolerance, Joe Lieberman, Bill O’Reilly, Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto, Jim Woolsey, Sean Hannity, John Bolton

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

By now, everyone knows that Keith Ellison apologized for his comparing the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 with the Reichstag Fire. In today’s press, that likely means that all is forgiven amongst the Agenda Media. I, however, remain skeptical of Keith Ellison’s apology. Here’s why:

Anyone that co-sponsors a bill that calls for the impeachment of an administration’s vice president tells me that he doesn’t just disagree with that administration; he’s loathe to it.

If you read H. RES 333, you’ll immediately recognize that the first two articles of impeachment accuse Vice President Cheney of lying outright. The third article of impeachment accuses Vice President Cheney of “openly threaten[ing] aggression against Iran” despite “no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States…”

This isn’t just an exercise in venting one’s frustrations; it’s an article-by-article declaration that the vice president is evil. I don’t arrive at those conclusions simply out of disgust with Keith Ellison’s comparing President Bush to Hitler.

I’m also factoring in Keith Ellison’s statements comparing violent gangs like the Bloods with ‘civil rights advocates’:

“The people who govern this society,” he suggested, are “incarcerating all these young black men” in some kind of retribution for the victories of ’60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to “free Nelson Mandela.” For the powerful, he said, the “very idea of…black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration.”

Anyone that thinks that violent gangsters are victims that need special civil rights protections, it isn’t a stretch to think that he’s got an authority complex.

In other words, it isn’t unreasonable to think that Keith Ellison (a) said exactly what he meant and (b) that he’s now apologizing without meaning it. Frankly, I think it’s quite likely that Keith Ellison was ordered to apologize to get a PR disaster off the front page. (more…)

History speaks for itself, and so do the results.

President Ronald Reagan | November 6, 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. In the past 35 years our nation has been increasingly affected by illegal immigration. This legislation takes a major step toward meeting this challenge to our sovereignty. At the same time, it preserves and enhances the Nation’s heritage of legal immigration. I am pleased to sign the bill into law.

In 1981 this administration asked the Congress to pass a comprehensive legislative package, including employer sanctions, other measures to increase enforcement of the immigration laws, and legalization. The act provides these three essential components. The employer sanctions program is the keystone and major element. It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here. We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.

—

Where have we heard this before?

Don’t let history repeat itself.

Bottom Line Up Front: GEN Pace said homosexual conduct is immoral, and he had a right to say it.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune on Monday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Peter Pace said he believed homosexual conduct to be immoral after defending the military’s “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy. He was not speaking officially on behalf of the military but was asked his personal opinion on the policy.

Bits and pieces of the interview are being reported, but in the spirit of context, I have transcribed the statement in its entirety from the audio interview GEN Pace granted the Chicago Tribune:

March 12, 2007

“My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct, that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members wives are immoral in their conduct and that we should not tolerate that. I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.

“So the don’t-ask/don’t-tell allows an individual to serve the country. If we know about immoral acts regardless if committed by whom, then we have a responsibility. I do not believe that the Armed Forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it’s okay to be immoral in any way, not just with regards to homosexuality. So from that stand point, saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that by policy would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity.

“Therefore, as an individual, I would not want that to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so and so was sleeping with someone else’s wife, that we would look the other way. Which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the Armed Forces.”

Those statements didn’t go over well with liberals and gay groups. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) issues this press release on its web site demanding that General Pace apologize for his remarks:

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,” said C. Dixon Osburn, the group’s executive director. “Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace’s praise, not his condemnation. As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.”

General Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, The Tribune reported on its Web site. He also announced his opposition to Congressional legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Well, we wouldn’t want anyone thinking adultery is immoral! The connection, of course, is between activities that undermine moral and distract the mission. This sort of behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual, fractures unit cohesiveness and a healthy work environment in a vocation where individuals are very intimate.

The preposterous notion that anyone should demand an apology does two things: 1) It takes away from the sincerity of the apology and makes it coersed, but more importantly it 2) promotes the idea that the offended (in this case, gays) are victims (of words???) and that they deserve more sympathy and civil rights. (more…)

Ann Coulter defended and explained her controversial remarks at the CPAC meeting over the weekend on last night’s Hannity and Colmes about former Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards. Coulter, a lawyer and former clerk for the Eight Circuit United States Court of Appeals, used the word “faggot” when alluding to Edwards but on Fox she explains the meaning of the word and argues in her own defense.

Full Interview:
Video Part I (22.8 MB)
Video Part II (22.8 MB)

Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front

RELATED:
Ann Coulter Calls Sen. Edwards a “Fag” (But not really)

Needless to say, we caught the news headline that’s making a lot of waves today about political firebrand Ann Coulter’s recent remarks. As Ronnie would say, there she goes again…

We were thinking good grief has Ann Coulter finally gone too far? Has she actually called someone an epithet which, if she did, should qualify her for political excommunication or, at the very least, big meanie status?

But then we saw the video of her actual remarks:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you’ve got to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’”

That changes the story slightly, doesn’t it?

Ann Coulter didn’t say “John Edwards is a faggot.” She merely joked about his pretty-boy metrosexual leanings, while playing upon the ridiculousness of this story.

Last October, gossips chattered about a scrap between two male stars on the set of the hip ABC medical show “Grey’s Anatomy.” Actor Isaiah Washington reportedly called a fellow cast-member a “faggot.” The rumors spurred cast-member T.R. Knight to openly declare he is gay.

But the controversy blew wide open after “Grey’s Anatomy” won at the Golden Globe Awards on Jan. 15 and Washington blurted out at a post-show press conference that he never called Knight a “faggot.” In Hollywood terms, he’d compounded the original rumored offense tenfold, and alarm bells sounded everywhere. Hollywood was horrified, and ABC was mortified, issuing a statement that, “We have a longstanding policy to create and maintain respectful workplaces for all our employees.”

Not just in Hollywood. Let the pile on continue.

Was Coulter funny? Not really. Was it a clever remark? Not especially, as it requires the audience to connect too many dots which usually leads to trouble. Do we encourage her to keep it up? No. Do we condemn her? No. Do we think she should apologize? Absolutely not.

In politics as in media, all the apologists are doing is making things worse by exagerrating the story, giving it more oxygen than it deserves. If anyone thinks conservatives are going to win points by chastising Coulter, think again. It doesn’t work that way. That would require fairness from the other side, and there is none. Alas, no matter what, this will become another piece of hype for our opponents to promote and use against us. Apologies not accepted.

Our advice to Ann: Pull a Gavin Newsom.

“It wasn’t me, it was the alcohol.” Yeah, that’s the ticket. And instead of being angry, everyone will gather around and feel sorry for her. Now, she becomes “the victim.”

If only Ann weren’t a conservative, it might work.

UPDATE:
Maybe she can join Mark Foley in rehab
(and it’s not the word that put him there)

Bottom Line Up Front: Cardinal at the Vatican told the Pope and others that the antichirst is a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist.

In a meditation preached during the Lenten Retreat for Vatican leaders this week, the outspoken Italian Cardinal Giacomo Biffi warned Pope Benedict XVI Excesses of ecumenism and a tendency of some Catholics to promote vague spiritual goals, rather than stressing the centrality of Christ’s Sacrifice.

“The Antichrist presents himself as a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist. He convokes an ecumenical council and seeks the consensus of all the Christian confessions, conceding something to each one.”

“The crowds follow him, except for tiny groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants. Chased by the Antichrist, they tell him, ‘You have given us everything except for the one thing that interests us, Jesus Christ.”

“Today, we run the risk of having a Christianity that puts Jesus with his cross resurrection into parentheses. The teaching that the great Russian philosopher left us is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of values. At the heart of being a Christian is the personal encounter with Jesus Christ.”

“There are absolute values such as the good, the true and the beautiful. One who perceives them and loves them also loves Christ, even if he does not know it, because Christ is the truth, beauty and justice.”

“There also are relative values such as solidarity, love for peace and respect for nature. If these are given an absolute value or uprooted from or placed in opposition to the proclamation of the fact of salvation, then they become the basis for idolatry and are obstacles on the path to salvation.”

Ouch! “The antichrist presents himself as a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist.” In other words, he’ll be against all war and conflict, an environmentalist and so inclusive with Christianity that a watered-down, diluted version is what will remain.

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Cardinal!

Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front