Say Anything Blog

Via Michelle Malkin.

DENVER, Aug. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Colorado Right to Life and American Right to Life will stand with black leaders from around the country at their Power in the Park rally and press conference on August 25, 2008, 8:30 am at Martin Luther King Park, one block from the largest Planned Parenthood abortuary in the nation.
The killing center, dubbed Auschwitz, by local opponents of the racist organization, is situated in north Denver’s minority neighborhood - consistent with the patterns of targeting minorities noted by Blackgenocide.org.
...
Black leaders, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King have recently been asking why black Americans are being targeted by Planned Parenthood for abortions and demanding that the killing stop.
“The number one taker of black life is abortion, and it’s time people woke up to that fact. The location of this latest Planned Parenthood facility in yet another minority neighborhood is a part of the continuing fulfillment of the racist, eugenicist dream of their founder, Margaret Sanger, but it is a travesty of the American dream. Planned Parenthood’s agenda discards the principle that we are all created equal, which is the basis of liberty for all Americans.” - Alan Keyes

The fact that the black community is traditionally Democrat continues to puzzle me, especially when the major pillar of the Democrat party is Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded on getting rid of all those pesky blacks and other people of color. By embracing Sanger’s intellectual child, the Democrats are embracing institutionalized racism. Even today, the organization still targets blacks, as evidenced by the recent racist call controversy that has given Planned Parenthood so much grief. I don’t know what it’ll take to convince blacks to abandon the party that still supports eugenics (Planned Parenthood), the KKK (Robert Byrd), genocide (The UN and refusing to help Rwanda) and supports criminals over innocent citizens. But we’ll all be better off when it finally happens.

From the Associated Press:

VENTURA, Calif. (AP) — The family of a gay teenager who was fatally shot in class blames the school district for allowing their son to wear makeup and feminine clothing to school — factors the family claims led to the death.
The parents and brother of 15-year-old Larry King of Oxnard filed a personal injury claim against the Hueneme school district seeking unspecified damages for not enforcing the dress code.

Chances are if the school had enforced the dress code...they would’ve been sued just like the federal government, the prisons, the army, City Halls, and even Fema.

Even if you do what they want, you can get sued by transsexuals.

It’s very much a damned if you do, damned if you don’t type of thing. If you prevent them from doing what they want, you’re discriminating against them. If they get hurt...well, why didn’t you stop them? It’s ridiculous.

Crossposted at Looking At the Left From the Left

In who he chooses as his running mate.

BOSTON (WBZ) ― Barack Obama has yet to name a vice presidential nominee and some are wondering if he might turn to Massachusetts to round out the ticket.

John Kerry for vice president?

Don’t dismiss the notion just yet.

Some political insiders are telling WBZ it could happen.

The article goes on to ask the very first question that popped into my head:

So why would Obama reach out to Kerry as his choice?

Even Heller admits its out there:

“If you’re laughing off the idea of Kerry back on the national ticket again, I don’t blame you. While he came close four years ago, his campaign was widely derided as, to put it politely, clumsy.

Obama is already being hammered as an out of touch elitist who changes his position every 15 seconds by his Republican opponents. So yeah, lets invite Mr. Flip Flop on the ticket. That’s absolutely brilliant. Obama would be done before the end of the week. Hillary would use that to argue that Barack can’t win and that she should be the nominee. And the DNC may just buy it.

While the article goes on to list all the strengths that Kerry would bring...it neglects that Kerry LOST on all of those areas. If Obama is looking to bolster his military credentials, Kerry is worst person he could go to. It wasn’t that long ago that right wing blogs were slamming Kerry for his “get stuck in Iraq comments”. Most Democratic pundits believe the Swift Boat Vets killed Kerry the first time around. What? They won’t go after Obama too? Better to have no record than a glaring weakness. More Americans believe that McCain is better on foreign issues that Obama. Adding the dude who lost to Bush, air force memos and “dissertion” rumors and all. Will the Winter Soldier really help Obama beat a POW on war issues? Hardly.

Taking in Kerry would confirm with the public everything the Republicans have been saying, he’s an out of touch, elitist, arrogant. And it would cost Obama an election that he’s already struggling in. Obama may be superman, but John Kerry is political Kryptonite.

h/t Drudge

CrossPosted at Looking at the Left from the Left

Erm...Make that Capitalism....

Cigarette makers used menthol to lure young

WASHINGTON - Tobacco companies deliberately changed the menthol levels in cigarettes depending upon who they were marketing them to — lower levels for young smokers who preferred the milder brands and higher levels to “lock in lifelong adult smokers,” researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health found.
The researchers reviewed industry documents dating back decades on product development and on strategic plans for menthol products.
They said that the tobacco companies researched how controlling menthol levels could increase sales among specific groups. Milder brands with lower menthol levels appealed to younger smokers. The milder products were then marketed to young consumers.

The main line people are using is a variation of the above “Cigarette Companies Attract Young Smokers with Menthol.”
Though USA Today takes it one step further with their headline that Cigarette Makers use Menthol to Addict Teens!

The dishonest implication is that the evil cigarette companies are going after CHILDREN (gasp) with their nefarious menthol. But buried in the middle of a few of the articles is the following info:

In 1987, R.J. Reynolds marketed low-level menthol varieties to persuade consumers to switch from regular brands and to recruit new, young smokers, noting: “First-time smoker reaction is generally negative. ... Initial negatives can be alleviated with a low level of menthol.”
Philip-Morris USA used a two-prong strategy to increase Marlboro’s share in the menthol market by targeting young adults and older smokers, the researchers concluded. Marlboro Milds were introduced nationally in 2000 and became popular among young smokers. The entry of that product coincided with an increase in the menthol level of the regular Marlboro Menthol brand intended for older smokers. The milds were responsible for almost 80 percent of the company’s menthol-category growth that year.

So, they’re targeting young...ADULTS? The horror!

In the real world, this is what’s known as capitalism. The cigarette companies got that their product was too harsh for most people and used menthol to soften the effects. They figured out what their clients wanted and gave it to them. As even the Harvard researchers noted, they were going after OTHER companies clients, and were trying to negate the initial displeasure by new smokers (this means people were trying their cigarettes and not enjoying them). More people enjoyed the product...and they made money as a result! How....how....eeeeeevil.....

This is no different than dozen of other companies have done, from diet coke, to vietamin water. This is simply the market. Lots of companies produce unhealthy (to various degrees) products, and aren’t the subject of witch hunts.

So how did all these news corps get the idea that cigarette companies were going after babies when they were targeting adults?

Greg Connolly, one of the report’s co-authors, said the tobacco industry was careful not to talk about adolescents in the documents he reviewed, mostly from the ‘80s and ‘90s.
“They talk about young smokers. For me, that’s just a euphemism for going after adolescent, first-time smokers,” Connolly said.

Oh. Well, that just goes to show how if you have an agenda going in that you’ll find what you want to find...even if the evidence doesn’t support it.

Cross Posted at Home of the Insane Reindeer

No racial component here folks!

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — If Barack Obama’s historic campaign to become the first black president boosts black turnout as drastically as he predicts, he could crack decades of Republican dominance across the South.
That’s a big “if.”
Still, an Associated Press analysis of U.S. Census and voting data from the past four presidential elections shows a potentially dramatic impact should Obama fulfill his pledge to elevate black participation by 30%.
That would add nearly 1.8 million votes in 11 Southern states, the analysis shows, enough to tip the balance in several that have been Republican strongholds.

And why would he expect such gains? And why only if he’s president?

The only reasonable explaination is that he expects black people to show up in droves never before seen...because he’s black. Gotta support a brother don’tcha know?

It’s nice to see the candidate of hope and change is still beholden to identity politics.

Crossposted

Cross Posted at Looking at the Left from the Left

Nancy Pelosi seemingly can’t decideon a consistant position about oil. Her bouncing around on the issue is almost a political bipolar disorder.

Last Tuesday she hammered Bush on the strategic oil reserve:

Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced to Democratic leaders Tuesday night that she has written a letter to President Bush, urging him to release a “small” amount of oil from the government stockpile to increase supply and decrease prices, a leadership aide said.
In the letter, Pelosi said the price of a barrel of oil has risen nearly five-fold during Bush’s tenure and called the effects “devastating.”
...
Pelosi’s letter noted that a release at the time of the start of the first Gulf War in 1991 brought prices down $8 a barrel. When President Clinton ordered a swap in 2000 to lower prices, she wrote, prices dropped 34 percent, to a little more than $20 a barrel.
The most recent drawdown, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, lowered prices by about $5 a barrel, she said.

So we’d be looking at anywhere between a 5 and 10 dollar a barrel decrease, or a 3.7-7.4% decrease in crude oil. Congress has also previously blocked efforts to add oil to the reserve. The 70,000 barrels a day put into the reserve constitute .0028% of our 25 million barrels a day oil consumption.

(more...)

From Michelle Malkin:

Reader Kevin B. e-mails what McClellan said in his press briefing on March 22, 2004 when asked about Richard Clarke’s book blasting the Bush Administration for 9/11 and CIA intelligence failures:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.

Pot. Kettle.

More like at the time, McClellan was appalled by such disgusting backstabbing and called it what it was. Once he bowed out he realized he could do the same thing and get rich and loved for it.

So, we have a choice to make:
Either Scott McClellan is a liar, making this up for his 15 minutes in the spotlight to become a liberal hero, or he was a coward who had no courage to come forward and actually criticized others who did so.

With the massive paycheck, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

And why in the hell are liberals celebrating this fool who they believe kept his mouth shut until it was too late to do anything about it?

CrossPosted at Home of the Insane Reindeer

Recently on Say Anything, Anna posted the following story about a protest to global warming. The ridiculous call was raised that a vast majority of the signatories were Medical Doctors.

The problem with this logic: none of the signatories professions or degrees were listed.

(more...)

On the Savage Nation (God knows why I still flip in, even on occasion) tonight, Michael Savage opined that “at least in Vietnam, we got to see the last helicopters leaving Saigon. Thank God. When are we going to see the last helicopters leave Baghdad? Five years and we still haven’t finished this mess? When will the helicopters leave?”

It’s amazing to me that any “self professed intellectual” would yearn for a “Saigon moment” in Iraq. Our flight from Vietnam, with South Vietnamese trying to cling to our helicopters is one of the most shameful moments in American history, and the images of that day are heartbreaking. Following our departure, millions were killed, and hundreds of thousands died trying to flee the Communist dictatorships set up in our absense. Our “defeat” in Vietnam has been used by every force that we have faced since as a reason to keep killing our troops even after we have crippled their military (hoping for a civilian retreat).

That bears repeating: Our retreat from Vietnam has directly led to every dead soldier in Iraq today.

The same thing will be true if we flee Iraq. We’ll send American troops back in under the UN (that is unarmed) after real genocide and civil war take place in the middle east. And the next time we have to use the military, it’ll just give the next force we fight a reason to keep killing our troops long after defeat is certain.

Absolutely shameful. What a douche.

Crossposted from Home of the Insane Reindeer

ABC News played a story about who the troops supported this afternoon. Overwhelmingly, those soldiers interviewed supported Barack Obama, with a handful of Clinton supporters. One sole McCain supporter was shown, with the lackluster “Well, the war has paid my bills so far...why not more?” as his answer to why he supported McCain. This is the average makeup of the US military?

Is this why, by CNN’s report (hardly a conservative bastion) voted that military personelle voted nearly 3-2 for Bush over Kerry? 57%-41% a 16% lead? NPR reports that it could swing either way in 2008. IF (and even most liberals admit this is a huge if) the Democrats garner the military vote, it will be by the barest of percentages, and will be more dependant on veterans than active military. The military vote has traditionally always gone Republican. And there’s no shortage of soldiers who are not fond of Democrats, as evidenced by pictures like this.

So then, what are we to make of this nonsense report except that ABC is trying to paint a picture devoid of reality? And what of the lone soldier for McCain who sees war as a pay check? That’s the average Republican soldier? What a vicious slander. Once more the liberal media tries to pretend the military is overwhelmingly Democrat (who just want out of Iraq), while a few knuckle dragging war lovers on the Republican side cheer on the carnage.

But accusing Republicans of liking war or being warmongers is nothing new amongst leftists. Why should we expect anything different around election time?

In years past, the “blood libel” was a dispicible charge, usually against the Jews, that they were a dangerous people who engaged in human sacrifice. Today, the blood libel has reared it’s ugly head, in secular criticism of Christianity. The drum beat of anti-Christian nonsense, labeling Christians as intolerant, dangerous, violent bigots...who we are to be constantly wary of, or else…

Law and Order tonight was a full display of the New Blood Libel. It dreamed up an imaginary Church of jihad loving Christians, who were going to take up “war against the hypocrites”. A young boy is convinced to murder his mother for having an affair, with a Muslim no less, by his preacher. And an entire congregation calls him “God’s warrior”. As the police take the pastor away, you see perhaps a hundred children surrounding the police cars, threatening the cops with charges of “this is war”.

In the video they show, he asks the children, “What do we say to the Muslims who would face us? What do we say to the blasphemers who ruin God’s house?” Again the children chant “this is war!”

What point does this have other than to mock Christianity once more? The entire episode is a slander against good faithful men and women, by forcefully claiming that, not only this church, but the Christian men and women on the jury, sympathize with the pastor’s views, and agree with his inflammatory rhetoric.

The purpose of the blood libel was to convince the masses that a certain group of people were dangerous, couldn’t be trusted, and had to be removed, one way or another, from society. We see nothing less than that today in the relentless assault against Christianity.

Shameful.

Yea, and Pigs Fly

Cross posted from Home of the Insane Reindeer

Further proving just how wrong those filthy rightwingers were about St. Obama, Trinty Church has recently issued a statement about Reverand White:

Mr. Moss invoked the 40th anniversary of the death of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., saying Mr. Wright’s character was being “assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe.”
...
“It is an indictment on Dr. Wright’s ministerial legacy,” Mr. Moss wrote, “to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite.”
He cited Mr. Wright’s development of ministries: “places for senior citizens, day care for children, pastoral care and counseling, health care, ministries for persons living with H.I.V./AIDS, hospice training, prison ministry, scholarships for thousands of students to attend historically black colleges, youth ministries, tutorial and computer programs, a church library, domestic violence programs, and scholarships and fellowships for women and men attending seminary.”

All of this, of course, is a neat little “look over there” trick, designed to deflect criticism.

No one at all is criticizing Wright for his contributions to humanity. They are criticizing him for his anti-Semetic and overtly anti-American remarks. And his seeming anti-white bias has put a couple people off as well.

Let us not forget that it was a 15-30 second video, shot on a phone that brought down Michael Richards, screaming “You can talk, you can talk, you’re brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! A n*gger, look, there’s a n*gger!” No one accused anyone of a hit job on Richards. No one said his remarks were taken out of context. No one demanded we look at how funny he was (or wasn’t) on Seinfeld. His remarks were taken at their racist face value and denounced.

It is not character assassination to point out someone’s own comments. It is not character assassination to show 3 and 4 and 5 minute clips of them talking. In one of these, the man even realizes that he has offended “some white people”, and much like Richards, tells them to get over it. “He’s preaching the Bible”, don’tchaknow? As long as there is no mitigating context that we’re missing, (and in Wright’s case, there clearly isn’t), playing his unaltered comments is nothing more than exposing people to his sermons. To compare him to the late great Dr. King is absolutely dispicible. Whereas King preached tolerance and told the black community to accept their white brothers and sisters (in an age where he was being sprayed with firehoses and attacked by dogs), Wright preaches about the evils of the white society to the black man (while he lives in luxury). The two couldn’t be further apart.

Mr. Moss added that the questioning of Mr. Wright added up to “an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”

And of course the parting racist shot. If you are against anything we do, you are an unmitigated racist, who just hates the black man.

This further strains Obama’s claim that he had no clue what Wright stood for. The very next minister defends Wright from these charges, echoing Barack Obama’s very same tone. “We can’t judge a 40 year career by a stupid thing said on occasion.” The question is...why not? That’s how we judge people in politics. How often is the assinine “Gays and single mothers helped cause 9/11” comment brought up, even now that the man is dead? It was a sad comment, and it rightfully tarred Falwell. The church simply wants a pass on Wright’s disgusting and reprehensible comments because he’s a black man, and black men, according to seperationist liberation theory, are supposed to stick together against white racist oppression (which this most certainly is...not honest criticism). Being black is the ultimate, get out of stupid free card.

While Trinity church would like to point to Reverand Wright’s years of service to the black community as a way to define him...it’s more appropriate to define him by his deep connections to virulent racist Louis Farrakhan, his support for suicide bombers in Palestine, his characterization of 9/11 as a way for “people of color to remind us they were still around”, and his many trips to state sponsors of terrorism.

Playing the victim card just doesn’t cut it here.

Crossposted:

If there is any area on which modern day liberalism is not willing to compromise its beliefs in order to appease the worst excesses of radical Islam, I have yet to find it. The staunchest defenders of human rights are oddly silent about the most eggregious human rights violations facing Muslims, mainly women and children. To the extent that ANY of them speak about barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation...it is usually to defend such practices.

One of the most grissly recent stories to fit this model is the tale of Yasser Abdul Said who murdered his daughters Amina and Sarah for offending his honor. No stories on DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground. And in a search on yahoo, google, and even ask.com, the first 40 stories are all from right wing blogs, usually linking either to JihadWatch and Robert Spencer, or to Phyllis Chesler. This is a case of TRUE theocratic religious zealots murdering their daughters for impure sexuality (real or imagined) and for religious reasons...yet, there is silence.

As Chesler reports:

[B]ased on extensive interviews that I have done with the female relatives of the murdered Texas teenagers, it is clear that:

a) Amina and Sarah were expected to wear headscarves. Their failure to do so, their “hidden” lives as normal American teenagers, doomed them.

b) Amina and Sarah were expected to enter into arranged marriages against their will to much older Egyptian men whom they had never met. Their refusal to do so doomed them.

c) Amina and Sarah were expected to keep quiet about the horrific sexual, physical, and psychological abuse which was heaped upon them by their father, mother, and brother. Their failure to do so doomed them.

d) Amina and Sarah were not supposed to have “boyfriends.” At the very least, their friends, both male and female, were not supposed to be Christians. The fact that they were friendly with Christian male teenagers doomed them.

e) Amina and Sarah were supposed to learn to hate America and to choose Shari’a law. Their failure to do so doomed them.

These are only some of the “rules” that Amina and Sarah were expected to obey. One of my informants has quoted their brother Islam, who often stalked his sisters, as saying: “They knew the rules. They broke them.” Islam is saying that it is their fault that his father had to kill them.

Thus, whenever you see a woman in a face veil, headscarf, or burqa, it is very likely that these rules also apply to her.

Western feminists, who leap to defend the poor and downtrodden female from having to unfairly look at ultrasounds of their unborn fetus, report to their parents that they need to travel across state lines to have an abortion at the age of 12, or have a 15 cent an hour wage difference from their male counterparts...are shockingly silent about the execution of two beautiful young women by their zealot father for not conforming to his expectations of their lives.

The charge of racism to anyone who brings up such issues is not only irresponsible...it is silly. How is it racist to try and defend women and children of color or minority faith? All those who would defend “the Muslim community against such slander” is defend behaviors that lead to the deaths of young women the world over in such “honor killings”. It’s just a shame that some would rather play victim politics than save lives. That those who would defend western women from the rather minor inconvenience of a wage disparity would not stand up for their sisters who are being executed by a very real patriarchy is a terrible dereliction of duty. And that some would actually defend a patriarchy responsible for such attrocities is disgusting and pathetic.

On this blog, I will occasionally post a side project of mine...what I call “Looking at the Left from the Left: Why Liberal Ideas Don’t Make Sense from a Liberal Worldview”. The point of this project is to show why all liberal thought is deeply and inherently self contradictory, and why it is a deeply reactionary ideology, bereft of any coherent unifying belief system or logical backbone.

No logical, coherent philosophy could produce the thought pattern that a wage gap (real or imagined) is an unacceptable patriachial business world discriminating against women...but that a man who cuts out his daughter’s sexual organs is just a cultural difference we need to understand. No rational person could ever argue that a woman has the unmitigated right to an abortion, yet has no right to smoke, or eat foods made with certain ingrediants. And no intelligent person could rationally expect minority children to succeed in a “deeply racist white boy world” by “acting black” or refusing to speak english.

Even if one tries to accept all Liberal arguments as fact, it doesn’t become long until we start hitting snags. “If it is responsible for a woman to have an abortion if she cannot keep a child, then why is it good for the state to subsidize, and indeed, even incourage, such women to keep the child by having a welfare state?” “If sex is an inherently coersive act...where a man is asserting his dominance over a woman, thereby exploiting her, then why would a company like Planned Parenthod go out of it’s way to hide statutory rape, and further the sexual exploitation of girls by older men?” “If it is violation of the Seperation of Church and State to have the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge, or to have the 10 Commandments in a courtroom...then how can it be remotely Constitutional to force California school Children to take a Muslim name, recite prayers in Arabic, and play jihad?”

It is my belief that these are not minor problems with the liberal worldview, but are emblematic of a deeply irrational worldview.

Over the course of these posts (identified with a LotL or LBL before each title), when I speak about things like “seperation of Church and State”, “right to an abortion”, and other such topics, these are usually not my personal views, but its simply me arguing from a leftist perspective to show the problems with the basic liberal conclusion. Hopefully, this will stop needless arguing when I call waterboarding torture, or refer to our soldiers as killing. If there’s a real question on where I stand, feel free to send me a message, and I will clarify my actual position.

I’m certainly up to examining any topic that I’m asked to. And I’m open to any real criticism or additions to the project.


http://www.theleftfromtheleft.blogspot.com

While he expounds on each problem, and the different views to it, we’ll just skip to Obama’s solutions:

Obama’s solution (to our disagreements about taxes): Shared sacrifice. If your last name begins with A through E, Obama will continue the Bush tax cuts. If your last name begins with F through L, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. If your last name begins with M through Z, Obama will raise your taxes. Now the following fiscal year, those with last names beginning A through E face a tax increase. The F through L’s get the Bush tax cuts. And the L through Z’s will have their tax cuts expire. The next fiscal year, Obama will rearrange the cuts, depending, of course, on your last name, and will continue this rotation every year of his administration.
...
Obama’s solution(on Iraq): Withdraw all troops by the year 2009. Then send them back in 2010, followed by their return to America in 2011, with another redeployment to Iraq in 2012. These on/off, every-other-year rotations would continue throughout his presidency. This satisfies those who want the troops home immediately. But it also appeases those who consider our national security dependent upon a military presence in Iraq. This policy also confuses our enemy, since they never know whether we are coming or going.
...
Obama’s solution (on health care): Provide universal health insurance to those without it. Allow those happy with their current health-care policies to retain them. Who pays for the uninsured 47 million? Tax Canada.
...
Obama’s solution (on global warming): Force Lutz to square off on pay-per-view against Al Gore in an Ultimate Fighting Championship no-holds-barred death match. The winner gets to decide America’s policy on climate change.
Hopefully this comforts the naysayers who doubt whether Barack Obama can, indeed, bring us together.

Read the whole thing. Elder demonstrates just why those who believe Obama can “bring us all together” are absolute idiots.