And Google let’s it stand.

More proof that feminism is not merely a hate movement, but a terrorist organization.

Google Groups : soc.men: “Heidi Graw

wrote in message

news:1105980568.376527.70290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com…
(snip)

> publicity stunts over here, especially those involving attempts to
> undercut the corporate/military/matriarchal infrastructure, may well
> result in lots-o-blood

F4J in America should bear in mind the ladies are armed to the hilt with
various weapons. Can we expect an old-fashioned Western shoot-out in the
streets? The bullets from a woman’s gun are just as deadly as the bullets
from a man’s gun. Ye takes yer chances.
Heidi “

KUTV: 8-Year-Old Charged For Sexual Conduct With Sitter:

“(KUTV) SALT LAKE CITY, Utah A mother is upset after a 14-year-old babysitter engaged in sexual conduct with her eight-year-old boy, and the eight-year-old was charged with lewd conduct. “

Jesus H. Baldheaded Christ! Who is running the fucking prosecutor’s office over there? Trish Wilson? Amanda Marcotte? Margaret Temple?

I must confess to being both speechless and flabbergasted.

8-Year-Old Charged For Sexual Conduct With 14 year old Sitter No, sadly, this is not a joke…

Pope Laments ‘Dying’ Churches in West - Yahoo! News

His Holiness also touches on divorce and remarriage:

“He mentioned in particular the case of when someone gets married in a church without being a true believer, is divorced, remarries and discovers his or her faith, but isn’t allowed to receive Communion.”

I’ll postulate this for you, sir: Let us say that two unbelievers marry, and later one of them converts to Catholicism. The other, having grown up in an anti-catholic tradition, rejects this, and it is a cause for the unilateral ending of the marriage.

Petrine Privilege, you might say. And true. The trouble is, according to canon law you have to prove the negative of the other party being unbaptized, which works only in the case of the other party co-operating. If they are actively hostile to an annulment, threatening civil sanctions, using a mutual child as a weapon,m and so forth, it becomes more problematic.

I will submit to your holiness that what has happened is that the church has failed the flock, not in being too hardline, but in not being hardline enough from the outset. It has tried to accomodate pluralism entirely too much, and what has resulted is that the church is expecting believers to adhere to one set of rules, and not recognizing that the secular world has another set which believers must adhere to as well. It is expecting believers to do all they can to preserve a marriage while they have no means to do so.

First, the Church needs to decide if it is the “One, Holy, Universal” church, or not. If not, well, what can be said? If so, then it needs to take a stance.

Next, get rid of the quibble between “Sacramental,” “Valid,” and “Invalid” marriages. It should be “Sacramental and valid” and “Invalid.” Civil marriages are invalid. Pagan (Non-judaeo-christian) are right out. Muslim - invalid. I’d accede to Jewish marriages, same God. Orthodox, of either the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, yes. Most other Protestant, invalid. The marriage sacrament requires a certain external form, and includes a validly ordained minister of the sacrament, and if a Heterodox Protestant church has invalid ordinations, it follows that the sacraments they administer are so much empty posturing, and ecunemism be damned.

Take a hard line. Marriage outside the church is invalid. Period. No more painful tribunals - your ex doesn’t appear on the rolls of the faithful, you never married in the church .. okay. It’s invalid. No annulment needed. If the former spouse wishes to contest it, make *THEM* prove it. Shepherd the faithful first, dammit.

Next - want to marry an outsider? Mandatory periods of waiting and counselling, as well as attendance and conduct requirements. No cohabitation. And so on. Stand for something.

Yes, a lot of weak and marginal Catholics will be lost who would be lost anyway sooner or later. I’d be happy to see the “Catholics for a free choice” gang get their walking papers myself, as well as the women’s ordination and gay marriage lobby, among others. It’s long past high time to stop playing chicken with these troublemakers. The bishops have tolerated their nonsense for far too long, and it’s disgraceful the pussyfooting and walking on eggshells that goes on to appease these heretics and apostates. It’s like the inmates being in charge of the asylum.

Give mixed marriages three years to get their act right with the church, by a process to be determined, and after that they are just fornicating.

Now, I am not saying the church should give license to catholics to plunder the virtue of protestant virgins, far from it. Fornication is still fornication. Unlike certain religions which will not be named but who worship a pagan desert demon called “ALLAH” it is possible to sin against unbelivers, as they are still human beings. But the church has to assert that the moral authority of God, as declared by his church, trumps the civil authority of secular states hands down. You cannot allow your flock to wander near the stream of “The Near Occasion of Sin” and then punish them for getting their feet wet.

Used to be the church taught against mixed marriages, secular marriages, and threw up every obstacle to them, and erected umpteen million hoops for people to jump through to discourage it. And when it changed to kow-tow to the secular world, the fruits of that were easily forseeable and is what we have now.

I’m not gone or disappeared, but I have a rotten cold and have been spending a lot of time sleeping.

So I haven’t been reading a lot of news or posting.

I am 6% Idiot.

I am not annoying at all. In fact most people come to me for advice. Of course they annoy the hell out of me. But what can I do? I am smarter than most people.

Take the
Idiot Test
@ FualiDotCom

And for laughs

I am 16% Metrosexual.

I need some advice. I need to STOP BUYING MY CLOTHS AT WAL-MART!!!! I will never land a decent woman unless I shave this nasty facial hair, and spend more then $5 on a haircut.

Take the
Metrosexual Test
@ FualiDotCom

John Kerry has piously demanded a total release of any document or correspondence related to John Roberts, as the senate can’t do its job to confrim him unless he is completely forthcoming.

How droll/ Do tell.

Form 180, poodle-boy?

Where Not To Throw Stones by Jim Davies

Re: My first post on this subject, Jim Davis has managed to sink from the outrageously ridiculous to the fucking absurd.

How can I put this succinctly?

“In an anarchist society, there can be no laws. So there shall be a law that there can be no laws.”

Now read that again, and see just how butt-stupid that sounds. Say it out loud. Point and laugh.

This is the basis for anarchy. It all breaks down when you apply it to the real world, and insert real people in the equation. It’s crackpot. It requires one to believe in more than one miracle.

In the Anarchist fantasyland, all people will magically become aware somehow that thier rational system of ethics will mysteriously become self evident, or that people who have not been able to grasp it en masse over millenia of human history will suddenly educate their progeny in it, and those children will buck the cycle of human history and for once listen to their parents, and not be know-it-alls.

In this utopia, all will be “Voluntaryist.” Nobody will hoard more than they need. Fair wages will be paid to workers and there will be no exploitation. And nobody will enforce this.

People will be free to do what they want - except join together and establish binding rules of conduct for their communities, that shall also be binding on those who move into them. Those people who move in there will just accept them, without quibble - because, dontcha know, nobody will force them on anyone else. That’d be unlibertairan.

There will be no discussions on what the meaning of “is” is.

In cases of criminal behavior - which is in itself an oxymoron because you have to break a non-existant law to be a criminal - privately contracted police will bring offenders before privately contracted courts for ajudication. Of course, there can be no enforcement of these things, as that would be coercive, so these malefactors will come peaceably and willingly submit. And these courts will have overlapping and concurrent jurisdictions, and will only have authority over those who “volunteer” to accept that authority. We’ll just take it on faith that these scoundrels and their victims will always be voluntarily under the non-authoritarian authority of the same court. Or that independent private law corporations will all be dancing to the same tune on what “torts” and “crimes” are.

But, in cases where there are disputes, all will be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Because somehow the freedom of the people who live in Happy Valley to, say, hunt the deer in the forst for their food will never conflict with, say, the Anarchist PETAns who live in the next valley over across the woods and regard them as pets. The Happy Vallyians will get to hunt the deer, and the Transylvanians will get to not have their deer hunted. Or is it that such things will not be regarded as property in a world where property rights are the highest law.

Of course, in another happy-land which regards unborn babies as full persons worthy of a right to live, abortions will be allowed for people who buy property (with unminted money from a non-existant government) and have their full property rights, and choose not to volunteer to share those uncoerced values.

Communities who regard themselves as having “evolved” beyond Judeo-Christian beliefs will never, of course, infringe on the liberty of someone to practice those beliefs.

Okay, I’m going to stop now. The contradictions are beginning to flow like the Amazon River and I’m not quite sure to laugh hysterically or vomit. And the cognitive dissonace is giving me a headache.

You get the point, though.

Just got done reading Regime Libertarians by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Oh. My. God.

Yet another example of why Libertarians, of which I am, sad to say, one of, consistantly manage to snatch political irrelevancy from the jaws of viability. Much as I love Liberty, and libertarianism, it gets more and more difficult at times to keep from banging my head against the wall at the bullheaded insistance there is on being opposed to anything that any other party in power tends to do. I remember when Klinton was in power, the folks at Lew Rockwell painted him with three sixes on his forehead. Now the same thing with Bush. It’s starting to sound knee-jerk, folks. Give it a rest. Guys, gals, humanoids - the same hysterical nuttiness is making the Democrats more and more of a fringe group. Wake up, look around, and learn a little. Three lessons: The Libertarian party is a political party. Politics is the art of the possible. And all political power derives from the barrel of a gun. Remember these, there will be a test later, and they will be important later.

Forget them at your peril. This is why the Libertarian party is more and more a mental masturbation society each and every day. Great ideas. And utterly clueless as to how they may be implemented. No, by all means, let’s not take the necessary steps. That would be statist. (For those not familiar with Libertarian Jargon, “statist” is the universal epithet in Libertarian circles. It’s kind of like “Nazi” to everyone else, and like Nazi, it becomes more and more meaningless every time it gets uttered.) Let’s instead scrunch our eyes tight, stick our fingers in our ears, and wish really, really hard. Then we can magically teleport to where we want to be instead of doing actual work to get there. And even better, if someone takes a step towards a freer society, let’s kick his legs out from under him rather than have the ideals and purity profaned by anything resembling an interaction with real life. Who knows, while we are busy acting like a bunch of goddamn crabs in a bucket, the Republicrats can carry us all merrily to hell under an ever bloated juggernaut of bureaucracy and the Nanny State.

The anarcho-capitalists - well, that’s not quite accurate. The ANARCHIST PURISTS who have taken over the thrust of Libertarianism these days are embodied in no purer form than can be found with Lew Rockwell and his merry band of ivory tower theoreticians. (Cue the “My Little Pony” theme. Or something sappy that puts one in the mind of sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows.) They envision a borderless world, with each and every person working their hardest, and enjoying bounty, prosperity, and wealth untold. No war. No disagreement. No courts, no states, nothing but Happy Little Capitalists passing money, money, money around. Every payday, they go to the Church of St. Ayn of the Holy Shrugging, and the blessings are poured upon them by a magic cash register. And all is harmonious, and simply wonderful. La-la-la, la-la, la-la-de-dah-de-dah!

And I’m sure I’m sixteen kinds of rat bastard for questioning the fantasy. God alone knows how many kinds of heretic I am, if even He can count that high. Personally, I think they have been eating too many of the brownies brought by another whack-job branch of the party, but they are another rant.

Now, on to the lessons. First, Libertarianism is a political movement, and a political party, ostensibly descended from the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson, and dedicated to the principles that the government which governs best, governs least, and the highest law is to mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself. One of the core maxims is that “If government is the answer, it’s likely a stupid question has been asked.” Note the “likely.” Not “invariably.” There is an important difference.

Not everyone agrees with us, and despite many of us being frustrated at mere mortals being unable to grasp these obvious and self-evident truths, it is reality. This group of “not everybody” is in fact the vast and overwhelming majority of people. Most will agree with the laudable ideals, but either cannot grasp, or fear, the results of them being enacted. This is because there is a minority, though a noteworthy and significant one, of people who are plain schmucks and like to work any system they can. Another minority which must be contended with is the assbags who are just a waste of oxygen. This includes criminals, feminists, socialists, al Qaeda, and a host of other anti-freedom knuckle draggers and mouth breathers. To combat these undesireables, and others unspecified for brevity’s sake, governments have been enacted, because most people are in fact what we Libertarians unharitably call sheeple - timid bunnies to afraid to conduct their own affairs. They crave structure and order, and the protection a societal framework provides. It’s not entirely unreasonable (oh, put the crucifix away, for pity’s sake), as people who must live in close proximity to each other are well served by common social boundaries, and it is far better they be codified and objective. Some people like to call these things “Laws,” and a society so ordered the “Rule of Law.”

A problem with dealing with this is that one of Libertarianism’s chief tenets is a prohibition against the initiation of force. Unfortunately the doctrinaire zealots have twisted this to mean that you can’t fire back until you are shot at. Many of them extend this to mean you can’t fire back until blood flows. And some even consider it not allowable until it is your own blood flowing. Rifles merely being loaded, rounds chambered, and aim being taken to the chants of “Ima bust a cap in yo ass!” are right out. Some call this “stupidity.” (Yeah, I’d be among this group.) And sadly, some will rush forward to the enemy lines and try to sell bullets during any cease fires. This would be the Rockwell Gang. This means the asshats, who we all would be better off if they were converted to situation Tango Uniform (Toes Up, also known as dead, deceased, crossed the River Jordan, sent to their eternal reward, at room temperature - see a pattern yet?), for the betterment of society, before they kill the rest of us, escape their just desserts under dogmatic Libertarian theory (This would be at this time Islamofascist terrorists). Yes, own a gun. Don’t ever freakin’ USE the blasted thing to accomplish diddley, but exercise your freedom to have it. It looks really cool on the wall, and makes you a tough guy who won’t take any crap off anyone.(tm)

Okay, like it or not, even if we grant government is not a necessary evil, it is most assuredly an unavoidable one, the proverbial excrement sandwich. The Libertarian party started out as an exercise in eating this excrement sandwich. Suck it up, take a bite, and pass it on. Lew Rockwell’s BVDs got in a wad because the Libertarian Party, in an uncharacteristic attack of clarity of thought, looked reality square in the eyes and took a bite. Needless to say this is treason and betrayal. God forbid Libertarians deal with what is, and make the best of a situation FUBARed like a soup sandwich. Fifty Lashes with a hardbound copy of “The Complete Works of Ayn Rand.” Back to being a complete political chowderhead, you. The nerve.

Look, if you have a political party, it means you acknowledge some legitimacy to government. Even the Holy Father Thomas Jefferson was not only part of the system, but was one of its founders and chief executives. There has to be something to it, then, merely being a government is not evidence of evil. It is dangerous, yes. George Washington warned us of its danger. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force … Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.” This is why the price of Liberty is perpetual vigilance, to paraphrase another great patriot. To keep the fire from getting out of control, so to speak. To this end, a constitution was prepared, cautiously limiting the government to a handful of functions, and assigning it a bare minimum of perogatives necessary to perform those functions with any resonable efficiency. (We also had one which didn’t give the government the cojones to do it. It was called “The Articles of Confederation.” It didn’t work out real well.) This is minarchism - small government, the minimum necessary. Anarchism, on the other hand is “no Government.” It logically follows that a political party of anarchists is an oxymoron. Oddly, anarchists hate minarchists, it seems, more than they do totalitarians. Hence, the Anarchist fifth column in the LP spends more time undercutting the LP than they do anything else.

I’ve said it before, I will say it again. And I will say it now. The single best thing the Libertarian party could do at this moment is to round up the anarchists, and toss them out, right briskly, square on their ear. They are an albatross. Hasta la Vista, baby. Sayonara. Don’t let the door hit ya in the tuchis on the way out.

We have borders for two reasons. First, it is the right of anyone who doesn’t want to live free to live like a bunch of unenlightened primitives, so long as they do it in their yard. Second, it is butt-stupid to let these moonbats come in and subvert your society when they point blank refuse to take a stake in it. By all means, sell them your produce at the door, but don’t let them into your garden. They’ll trample your corn down and walk on your begonias every time.

With a political party comes politics. Now while everyone is doing the obligatory nose-holding and utterances of “eeeeew!” it’s another painful and ugly truth. It’s the people don’t agree with you part. If you don’t want to be a dictator, and become that which you hate, you must negotiate with them, no matter how much of a douche bag they are, and achieve what is possible through democratic forms. This is a blind and blinkered spot in many Libertarians. It makes them twitch, and gives them tics, and attacks of Tourette’s syndrome. Show ID to buy a gun? Might as well repeal the second amendment. Anything less than pure and unadulterated liberty all around, and unrestricted behavior, is just identical to living under a totalitarian state. Small steps? Incrementalism? Perish The Thought! Total victory, or get in a perfect snit and stalk away. Don’t participate. Hell no! Lends legitimacy to the system, and by God, even if we do leave it in the hands of the fascists, who come round at midnight and haul us off, we may be dead, but we are dead right! Hallelujah, and praise Jesus! (That is, provided you aren’t of another nutcase branch of Libertarianism which believes that voluntary association with a church is the only illegitimate voluntary association. Rand forbid we ackowledge any g_d - or is it “gawd” this week? I can’t remember, but I know we use lowercase to demonstrate our total lack of respect - higher than our own hedonistic impulses and immediate, instant, gratification.)

The ugliest and inescapable truth is that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Yes, Mao said this, and he was a communist bastard, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Radical Libertarians will usually go into a song and dance at this point about voluntaryianism, and privately contracted police and courts, and claim it has never been tried. Sorry, in fact, it has. Chiefs and Judges (They filled both roles) Bonanno, Genovese, Gambino, Luchese, and Profaci ran New York for years offering privately contracted protection. It wasn’t pretty. And we have a term for people who insist on doing the same stupid thing again and again and expecting a different result. This is what happens when one finds something distasteful and decides not to dirty their hands with the unpleasant work. The Romans did that with the barbarian Auxilarae when they found guarding the empire to be tedious and beneath them. And we know how that turned out, too. The the question is, who do you want holding the gun - you or the barbarians?

Well, more proof that the only thing some people learn from history is that we never learn from history.

Update:

Holy Smokes. I’ve been trackbacked by John Henke at Q&O, who has his own ideas on it too.

Nice to see that Neo-Libertarian thought is gaining such widespread traction. We may be able to resurrect this party yet.

As posted by the TrollHunter General himself, Nekama, over at LGF.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the TrollHunter General and, with his blessing, adopt this creation of his (slightly edited to fit this place):

MEMO

This is an automated reply from the Bullshit Detector at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. Your recent post contained troll-like characteristics which resembles the type of message sent by spoiled ISM members on summer holiday, college students who have recently inhaled Noam Chomsky?s foul rantings, Adam Shapiro wannabes, Nazi sympathizers, or genuine Koranimals.

In order to prevent another thread being hijacked, and to send your message to the appropriate department for response (FOAD, GAZE, Go Away Gordon, or The Bus To Rachel Corrie?s Tomb Is Leaving - Be Sure You?re Under It), kindly reply to the following questions:

1. Are you aware that the Disputed Territories never belonged to the ?Palestinians? and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel?s border in order to ?push the Jews into the sea?. The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the Koranimals don?t want to lose territory to Israel, then they shouldn?t start wars? Do you agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peace with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity - making the desert bloom - while the residents of 19 adjacent Arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?
2. Did you know that the ?Palestinians? could have had their own country as far back as 1948 had they accepted the UN sponsored partition plan which gave Israel AND the Palestinians a countries of their own on land which Jews had lived on for thousands of years before Mohammed ever had a wet dream about virgins? The Arabs rejected the UN offer and went to war with the infant Israeli nation. The Arabs lost and have been whining about it ever since. Do you agree this is like a murderer who kills his parents and asks for special treatment since he is now an orphan?
3. Can you tell us ANY Arab country which offers Jews the right to be citizens, vote, own property, businesses, be a part of the government or have ANY of the rights which Israeli Arabs enjoy? Any Arab country which gives those rights to Christians? How about to other Arabs? Wouldn?t you just LOVE to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Syria?
4. Since as many Jews (approximately 850,000) were kicked out of Arab countries as were Arabs who left present day Israel (despite being literally begged to stay), why should Arabs be permitted to return to Israel if Jews aren?t allowed to set foot in Arab countries? Can you explain why Arabs can worship freely in Israel but Jews would certainly be hung from street lamps after having their intestines devoured by an Arab mob if they so much as entered an Arab country?
5. Israel resettled and absorbed all of the Jews from Arab countries who wished to become Israelis. Why haven?t any Arab countries offered to resettle Arabs who were displaced from Israel, leaving them to rot for 60 years in squalid refugee camps? And why are those refugee camps still there? Could it be that the billions of dollars that the UNWRA has sent there goes to terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, El Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or Hezbollah? How did Yassir Arafat achieve his $300 million in wealth? Why aren?t these funds distributed for humanitarian use?
6. Did you know that the Arabs in the disputed territories (conquered by Israel in the 1967 war which was started by Arabs) and who are not Israelis already have two countries right now? And that they are called Egypt and Jordan?
7. If your complaint is about the security fence which Israel is finally building in the Disputed Territories, are you aware that it is built solely to keep the ?brave? Arab terrorists out so that they can no longer self detonate on busses, in dining halls or pizzerias and kill Jewish grandmothers and schoolchildren? Why are the Arabs so brave when they target unarmed civilians but even when they outnumber their opponents they get their sandy asses kicked all the way to Mecca when they are faced with Jewish soldiers? Why do Arab soldiers make the French look like super heroes?
8. Please explain why you are so concerned about Arabs, who possess 99% of the land in this region and are in control of the world?s greatest natural resource, which literally flows out of the ground? Can?t their brother muslims offer some of the surplus land and nature?s riches to the ?Palestinians?? Or is it true that Arabs are willing to die right down to the last ?Palestinian??
9. Why do you not exhibit the same level of concern for say, people in Saudi Arabia who are beheaded, subject to amputation, stoning, honor killing etc.? What about women who are denied any semblance of basic civil rights, including the right not to be treated as property for the entertainment and abuse of her father, brothers, or husbands? What about the Muslims in Sudan and Egypt who are still enslaved, or the women there whose genitalia are barbarically cut off? How about the oppression of Shiites by Sunnis, the gassing of the Kurds by Iraq, or the massacre of ?Palestinians? by Jordan (Black September)? Why doesn?t this concern you?
10. Did you ever stop to wonder how much better off everyone in the region would be if Arabs stopped trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel? What would happen if the Israelis gave up their weapons and disarmed? Would they live to see the next day? But what would happen if the Arabs completely disarmed? You know the answer: They would all be AT PEACE! And if there is no war to rile them up, the Arabs would be forced to look at their own repressive, pre-medieval societies. Why would they want to do that when there are Jews to kill?
11. Have you heard ?People who define themselves primarily by what they hate, rather than who they love, are doomed to failure and misery?? Can you see the parallels to the Arabs, who are blessed with land and oil, but still gladly train their children to kill themselves in order to kill Jews? Have you heard Golda Meir?s words to the effect of ?There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours?? Why do the Arabs hate so much?

Please state your answers to the questions listed above. If you need assistance or require additional study, then please refer to the following links:

Thousands of women killed for honor:

Muslims lament Israel?s existence:

Disputed Territories ? Forgotten Facts

The size of Israel compared to neighboring countries in the region

Jews expelled from Arab Countries

One Million Jews flee Arab countries ? why no right of return for them?

Middle East Facts

Middle East Truth

Larry Miller on Hypocrisy

Please respond to the items listed above. Based on your answers a thoughtful reply or instruction to FOAD will be provided.

Thank you for writing to the Empire.

Signed,

Imperial Troll Hunter General Nekama,
Troll Early Warning Detection Team

I waken again from the dream. Women and children crying. Rubble. That is all there is to see.

The Twin Towers; once filled with busy people and happy smiling faces. Now dead Firemen, Police: destroyed families — no peace, no hope …

I miss my brothers so much. Images of their mangled bodies lying in pools of blood will never leave my mind …

The subway door opens. Two muslims. The enemy. The destroyers, who say they are here to live among us. I hate the Arab …

One speaks, I cannot understand, is he going to kill us too?

A victim of war with nothing to live for except maybe to uphold the memories of my beloved friends, my family, my God, and my country.

To truly show the world what it means to be American, I reach under my jacket and release the catch of the .45 strapped to my chest. Two minutes. Silence. THEN!!!!!

How powerful is war?..

Townhall.com C-Log : The Howard Smack-Down

I’ll let His own words speak for themselves. God Bless the Aussies.

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don’t want to add to what the prime minister has said. It’s a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter)

teddwebb.com

His email is tedd@teddwebb.com

DJ Tedd Webb Says “Free Pass for Child Molesters!”

Mother Arrested For Having Sex With Son’s Friend

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

A teacher’s aide accused of having sexual relations with two high school students who have learning disabilities has been charged with six counts of sexual misconduct with minors.

Amber Marshall, 23, of Hebron, made her initial court appearance Monday in Porter Superior Court.

Six counts, and on Learning Disabled Students. IOW, these aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. But I bet Femisexists will now be claiming that the poor, empowered, strong, secure, self-assured, and independent woman was led astray by these two horrible males who out foxed her with their masculine wiles even being nearly half her age.

Four of the counts carry six- to-20-year prison sentences, and two have sentences of between two and eight years.

That’s up to 96 years, if sentenced to be served consecutively - as I imagine a man who seduced 14 year old learning disabled female students would be.

Lets see if woman-firsters have any integrity in insisting that since women are so much more moral, ya know, that it makes their crime more heinous, and should be held to at least as high a standard as the defective males who really can’t be expected to behave any better than animals.

Marshall told the judge that her mother took out a loan to help her post bail, which was set at $75,000, and that she and her family did not have the money for a private attorney. Bradford granted her a public defender.

Oh, oh, pity me, pity me! I’m an allegedly full grown woman and I put my family’s well-being and security on the line for my immaturity, so I need the help!

Marshall, who was employed by the Porter County Education Interlocal, was arrested June 10 on charges that accuse her of having sexual relations with two of the students in her learning disabled class at Hebron High School in the town 20 miles southeast of Gary.

One of the students, who was 14 at the time, told police he and Marshall “made out” and had intercourse several times between Feb. 1, 2004, and June 1.

Two students, no less. 14. Wow, I wonder if the femikooks are going to declare open season on 14 year olds for adults to mind-fuck and take advantage of?

Or does that only apply to female students? After all, male students are “Lucky” to be used by female sexual predators, and we need to - (sniff, sob) “Understand” what elements of Patriarchal Oppression (tm) force her to do that.

The second student, who was 15 at the time, told police Marshall performed oral sex on him, but they did not have intercourse. He said the encounters happened between July 1, 2004, and June 1.

And doing two of them at once. Let’s see - we call men who are having sex with two women at once “Playas” and “Dogs” - what is the word I am looking for?

Oh yes. That would be “SLUT.”

It’s going to make it awfully hard, though, to convince people she was “In Love!” when she tries to weasel out of this one.

Hang her high.

Scotty has beamed up.

As trendy as the Whole Rove issue is, I’ve avoided addressing it for a long time here. Everyone else is talking about it, and I hate to be just like other folks.

Frankly, I’d rather be addressing gender issues right now, but the femikooks just haven’t been poking their heads out from under the rocks they slithered under as of late. Which cheeses me off, I mean, here I am with a belt of rock salt loads for my keyboard and nobody to shoot at.

Okay, Rove.

Let’s see, let’s go back to the beginning. Joe Wilson, the infamous last man out of Baghdad in GW-1, has long been opposed to military action against his good buddy Saddam. This is a given. He argued bitterly against going to Baghdad then, and has long been a proponent of “Let’s give him one more last chance.” Be honest - if Baghdad Joe were watching a mushroom cloud rise over an American city, if it was delivered by Saddam, he’d be urging us “not to be hasty.” Check.

British MI-5 gets hold of info that suspects Saddam is looking to buy Yellowcake Uranium. Check. Which is true - Saddam had been asking about.

Little Joey Wilson, ever the Saddamite Sympathizer, offers to go check this out, and does a half-assed job of it. He comes back, gives a verbal report, and then go writes an article for a major newspaper which is chock full of lies and half-truths - or, IOW, more lies. He lies about who sent him, whatt he found, and condemns - again - going after his butt-buddy Hussein.

Meanwhile, Valerie Plame, who has outed herself, has been compromised by both the Russians and the Cubans, who no longer works as a CIA operative, but as an analyst, who hasn’t been an operative or even overseas for years and years, who walks into Langely every day, is the one who arranges for Joe to go over there. Not Dick Cheney. Valerie. You know, that Valerie, Valerie the Spy, which everyone in Washington and every major news bureau except for the clueless Democrats in Congress seemed to know about as an employee and former confidential operative.

Mr. Novak Calls Rove and asks if it’s true that Valeria Plame, Joe Wilson’s wife, who works at the CIA, sent Wilson, or did Cheney? Well, Rove says Cheney didn’t. So, Novak leaks to Rove.

Cooper asks ROve - rove says “Watch what your write, Coop - it looks like that clown’s wife, who works at the CIA here in Washington, sent him, and you’ll wind up looking silly.”

Libby - Cheney’s pit bull, says something like “I heard something like that.” when asked.

Meanwhile we have one liberal reporter for a liberal paper sitting in jail and refusing to divulge a source when both Rove and Libby have waived confidentiality. Whack with the cluebat for ya - her source ain’t Rove or Libby. And how much you want to bet it is the first source of the leak, and it won’t be the Bush Administration that it would embarass?

Now, in all of this, Fitzgerald, the Special Independent Prosecutor, turns out to have spoken to Rove over a year ago, eliminated him as a target, had him testify in front of the grand jury, all because it turns out Rove hasn’t done anything illegal, much less immoral or unethical.

So, the upshot of this, is that Karl Rove - who hasn’t broken any laws or confidences - needs to be fired for doing nothing wrong. (Well, other than outfoxing the Dummocraps at every turn, but I’m with John Gibson on this one, give him a medal.)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Okay. Yeah, whatever you say.

Every notice that hearing liberals talk is kind of like listening to the smelly homeless guy on the bus next to you rant about the mind control lasers to his invisible friend?

London bombings. Four native born British lads of Pakistani extraction and Muslim in belief did it. Okay - what native country were they avenging the invasion of? Not Great Britain, and Not Pakistan, that’s for damn sure. Anyone? Of course, that’s the current left-wing hand-wringing point of the moment “Well, you can’t blame them for being angry when their country is being invaded, and occupied, and bombed, and it’s all our fault we got attacked.”

EXCUSE ME! MCFLY! ANYONE HOME?!?!?!

What these sons of bitches were doing was plain and simple blowing up people in the name of Allah, because their brother Muslims are more important to the treasonous bastards than their own countrymen. Here’s a clue - we may not be fighting this as a holy war. They are. And I think after crap like this it is fair, and right, and just to demand that Muslims either declare themselves unconditionally fer us or agin us, and if you is agin, get the hell out of here. As my great-uncle used to say to the carpetbagging damnyankees*, “Them goods ain’t fer sale” if you know what I mean.
—————————
* For the terminally northern: The difference between a Yankee and a Damnyankee is that a Yankee is one who is located north of the Mason-Dixon line at the moment.

Teacher’s Aide Charged for Sex With Disabled Students

We could have done one hell of a lot worse than John Roberts. And best of all, it puts the Dems in an untenable position vis-a-vis a “filibuster.”

Predictably the far left wingnuts are in a tizz. Of course, they’d oppose Ruth Bader Ginsburg if Bush nominated her, so this is no suprise. You just kind of have to tune those freakazoids down to white noise, as they are of about as much consequence.

Roberts is eminently confirmable, and impeccably conservative. Devout Catholic. Member of the Federalist society. A short but clear record as a jurist, which indicates he votes principled and conservative with gusto. No skeletons in his closet, and has already sailed through nominations with overwhelming support.

I feared a Souter. For once, George found a pair and lived up to a campaign promise. I also feared he’d pick a woman and turn that seat into the “Woman Seat,” which was my only quibble with Thomas, a pick which does much in my mind to move GHWB towards some sort of forgiveness, that George the First turned that seat into the “Black Seat.” George wants to put a woman on the court, put Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen in when Rhenquist retires (And make Scalia or Thomas, preferably Thomas, Chief Justice). The only thing I can hope for is that Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, or Souter now have that heart attack Julianne Malveaux has been wishing on Thomas for so long (Hey, and maybe Kos will follow of apopelexy - BONUS!!!). The fact that he picked Roberts is going to do much for such a nomination to dispel the “Not the best person for the job, just the best female” rubric that was Jackboot Janet Reno’s albatross with Klinton.

Now, no, this isn’t a Scalia or Thomas- but John Roberts is Rhenquist Junior, and it could have been much, much, worse.