The Limburg Letter

The Blogger Era is Over

2005-07-10T10:47:00.000-07:00

Today it's official, The Limburg Letter has outgrown its Blogger roots and will now be hosted exclusively on http://www.brashlimburg.com . Click the link now for more news about the move.

Now They've Crossed the Line

2005-07-08T08:38:00.000-07:00

It's one thing to insult me (that rolls right off), it's another thing to insult my mother (I have to take a few deep breaths), but when you go after Brit Hume, well, now we're gonna have words. Watching Brit eviscerate Juan Williams each week on Fox News Sunday is the only thing that gets Ms. Limburg and I out of bed. He's my personal Mr. Miyagi of politics, and so now I must defend his honor with a rhetorical crane kick.

The pundit on the receiving end is one David Sirota, a blogger for The Huffington Post (read by over 2 dozen!). Yesterday night he wrote a post with the catchy title "Brit Hume Goes on TV and Says He Wants to Profit Off the Terrorist Attacks". How pithy...

In his post, he takes out of context an exchange between Shepard Smith and Brit Hume concerning how the attacks will affect the stock market. Essentially Shep says "Hmmm, the market didn't drop in the US, what do you think?" and Brit replies "Well, personally, when I heard there was an attack and saw the futures were down I thought I should buy." Oh sin of sins! Brit actually admitted that he plans to buy low and sell high! Furthermore, he advocates "buying into terrorism" instead of panicking, selling all his stock, and demanding all the troops leave Iraq! Scandalous.

Mr. Sirota uses this as a basis to claim that Brit's "impulse to use the bloodshed to make himself money was so intense, he actually voiced it on national television" and that it "gave us a glimpse into just how cynical, greedy and disgusting the right-wing's outlook on the world is."

I'll let you make that judgment for yourself dear readers. Personally I think a comment(which was presumably screened by a Huffingon Post moderator) posted by "caiser" illustrates that the Left are the true purveyors of cynicism and ugliness :

"Wondering if Brit turned a tidy profit when his son committed suicide with a bullet to the brain? Might want to ask him."

Get Angry

2005-07-07T07:51:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning to pictures of bloodied Londoners. America's greatest ally had been bruised, but not beaten. For all the destruction, there's very little panic; these are a people who saw their city leveled by Hitler's war machine, Al Qaeda will have to do worse to make them blink.

While England displays its strength and stoicism to the world, it's time for America to show its anger. No more guilt over detainees, no more hand-wringing over the cost of the war, and no more second guessing whether we're doing the right thing, because the terrorists don't.

While we bicker, they plan. While we can't even agree what we're fighting for, their intent is crystal clear; just read the statement of the group taking credit for the attack:

"Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan."

They don't separate Iraq and Afghanistan, they understand this war better than the majority of our own citizens.

We can no longer afford to be so naive. Our allies are paying the price today, but we remain in the crosshairs. "Never Again" was not just an empty catch phrase, it had a meaning that we've begun to forget. We need to remember, and get angry.

Greens Don't Want Progress, They Want Utopia

2005-07-06T08:44:00.000-07:00

Unless it's breaking news I hate to do a repeat topic, but judging by yesterday's comments it needs to be done. The general response to my critique of the Kyoto treaty was "so long as it's doing something to help the environment, it's good (just don't ask me about the details)."

Just for laughs, let's work with that thesis.

You're George Bush. After a few too many drinks one night you accidentally sign the Kyoto treaty. Damn. Now you have to figure out a way to reduce greenhouse emissions while keeping energy production at the levels the economy requires. You call some granola-eating hippy into your office for advice. The solution? "Wind power man...it, like, harnesses the power of mother nature."

The obvious solution is to build an enormous windmill farm off the east coast that will provide the energy we need without harming the environment. Well...not so fast there Mr. Bush, because while residents on the east coast like green energy, they love their view, and sailing, and fishing, and....hell, this isn't going to work.

Undaunted, you just decide to move them somewhere inland, where they won't negatively affect any of the people you're trying to help. Unfortunately it's not just people you have to be concerned about. Sure you're reducing CO2 emissions, but you're also killing birds. Environmentalists love green energy, but not if it costs the life of one burrowing owl.

Hmmmm. This turned out to be pretty complicated, and that's exactly the point. Obviously reducing pollution is a good thing, but implementing solutions is never clean and painless. America is getting greener at it's own pace, full of fits and starts. The Kyoto treaty short circuits this natural evolution, and punishes us for doing anything but the quickest, stupidest solution.

When Saving a Tree Means Losing Your Job

2005-07-05T09:20:00.000-07:00

Back from the long weekend and looking into a gym membership after a a few days of gluttony. While I did spend countless hours in front of the TV watching baseball and History Channel documentaries, I'm proud to report that I didn't catch one millisecond of the Live8 concerts this weekend. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

I mention it only because a reader asked about my opinion on the G8 summit this weekend, specifically the Kyoto treaty. In the past I think I've made my opinion of global warming pretty clear, but Kyoto deserves special scorn...er, attention.

The bottom line is this: you can believe in global warming with all you heart, but supporting the Kyoto treaty requires a level of know-nothingness that invalidates your entire cause. If you listen to those on the Right, they'll tell you that Kyoto will be astronomically expensive and do very little to affect climate change. If you listen to the Left, you'll hear that Kyoto will be astronomically expensive and do very little to affect climate change, and it's a good first step.

The facts aren't really in dispute, just the wisdom of crippling our economy for a few hundredths of a degree. Fortunately, President Bush is well aware of this and isn't going to budge at this week's summit. For those that disagree with him, let me suggest you sell your car and buy a bike. It might mean you have to quit your job on account of the long commute, and it won't do much for the environment, but hey, it's a good first step.

And They Call This Progress...

2005-07-01T10:57:00.000-07:00

Since the O'Connor announcement turned out to be much ado about nothing, I figured I still owed my audience some substance for the day.

Before the big announcement there was a story that caught my eye about the mayor of Baghdad:

"Baghdad's mayor decried the capitol's crumbling infrastructure and its inability to supply enough clean water to residents, threatening Thursday to resign if the government won't provide more money. "

Assuming that his complaints are legitimate and not just a case of politics, I think a certain group of lawmakers should take special note of his plight. In a scenario so ironic it must be true, Baghdad is shutting down because they don't have enough money, while Minnesota is shutting down because they have more money than they know what to do with.

I'm sure the Iraqi people wish they had those kind of problems.

Now it's Going to Get Ugly

2005-07-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

Time to start dusting off the big, red, nuke button:

"Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor submitted her retirement notice to President Bush on Friday, setting the stage for a contentious battle over her replacement.
'Dear President Bush, this is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great priviledge indeed to have served as a member of the Court for 24 Terms.'
'I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the
Court and its role under our constitutional structure," O'Connor wrote.'"

I'm expecting some sort of statement out of the White House as well as the Democratic leadership this afternoon. Until then there's not much to say, except thank God Diebold rigged all those voting machines in Ohio.

**UPDATE**
The President is making a statement in 15 minutes. On the oft chance there's any substance I'll be following up.

Iraq FAQ: Day Two

2005-06-30T06:00:00.000-07:00

As of this morning there are two entries in the Iraq FAQ; both ready and waiting for feedback. The FAQ itself is already getting unmanageable so any ideas on how to separate it are appreciated.

More updates to come.

Announcing The Iraq FAQ

2005-06-29T08:24:00.000-07:00

Alright, this has to stop.

No matter how many posts I write, or comments I respond to (on my site and others), I always end up back where I started, making the same points over and over again. While it makes for good sport, I'd like to start seeing some progress. The dialogue on Iraq has been kept in neutral for too long by people whose entire position is based on a series of false premises.

Enter the Iraq FAQ. I only have a few ideas for how this will work and it's bound to change as it grows. In the beginning I plan to address some of the "Big Lies" coming out of the Left, but as news breaks or people pose new questions I'll explore those as well. Furthermore, if a reader responds with a well-documented comment that debunks the original answer, I will post that underneath (and then do my damnedest to debunk it).

Later today I'll post the first Q and A; in the meantime feel free to post Q's you'd like me to address. By the way, you Libs may want to dig out your copy of Fahrenheit 9/11, you'll be needing the propaganda later to wash that "truth taste" out of your mouths.

Is there a link between the events of 9/11 and Iraq?
The idea that Iraq "had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks [on 9/11]" is one of the cornerstones of the Anti-War movement. This begs the question "Who was primarily responsible for 9/11?" The answer, of course, is Al Qaeda (and this conclusion is documented at length in the 9/11 Commission report starting on page 145).

Having established this, a pre-9/11 connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda would therefore establish an indirect link between Iraq and 9/11 (the fact that it is "indirect" is hardly significant; Al Qaeda is a body without a country, requiring a direct link would preclude any action being taken against Al Qaeda outside of the US, where it would presumably be too late).

There are numerous pieces of evidence for a pre-9/11 connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

A 1998 Justice Department indictment against Bin Laden which reads:

"In addition, Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

The Mohammed Atta/Iraq connection. Although this is still in dispute, there continues to be strong evidence that one of the 9/11 hijackers met with an Iraqi Intelligence officer in 2001. See here and here for two detailed discussions of the evidence.
Evidence of Iraq's involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing presented to the 9/11 Commission. This is perhaps the most interesting piece of evidence because it suggests the Iraq would use Islamic terrorists in a psuedo-military strike.

These are a small handful of examples that I chose to research further. An exhaustive list of evidence can be found here.

While some of the evidence is more conclusive than others, and none of it represent a smoking gun, the preponderance of evidence erases any doubt that Iraq was actively engaged with Al Qaeda before 9/11.

That's not good enough Brash, I need a direct link!
Well, if that's the case you'll have to keep looking because no country played a direct role in 9/11. The evidence can all be found in the 9/11 Commission Report. Don't believe me? Let’s look at the facts:

Chapter 5 of the report (page 145) details the birth of the "planes operation". From the very beginning this was an all Al Qaeda production; the Taliban supplied safe haven for terrorists and funding (as the Taliban expected Al Qaeda to serve as a militia in future efforts to consolidate control of Afghanistan), but at no time did they participate in the plan itself.
When the Taliban learned of Bin Laden's plan, the leadership ordered him not to proceed. Bin Laden ignored them, gambling on the fact that they would not take action while Al Qaeda's cooperation was still needed for an assassination attempt on a leader of the Northern Alliance (page 252).

Of course some may consider the funding and offer of safe haven the equivalent of a direct link. By that rational, the same link can be made to Iraq.

While Al Qaeda was still in the early planning stages, the Iraqi government contacted Bin Laden and offered him safe haven in Iraq. The two groups met on a number of occasions, but Bin Laden ultimately rejected the offer because he was already established in Afghanistan (page 66). This is the same section with the oft quoted line "we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship". It wasn't for lack of trying; Bin Laden simply blew Saddam off.

Had Bin Laden accepted, the Iraqi government would have played the role of the Taliban on 9/11. Now ask yourself this question: If you solicit a hitman to do a job but he turns you down, do you still go to jail?

Evening Edition: Fort Bragg Reactions

2005-06-28T17:36:00.000-07:00

He didn't take my advice, but otherwise President Bush's speech was perfect.

Whether or not his critics will acknowledge it, Bush addressed a number of their concerns. He drew a straight line from the War on Terror to Iraq (using OBL's own words no less), he set strategic milestones (a constitution, a new election, and a self-sufficient Iraqi military), and he rebutted the argument that our progress in Iraq has stopped (continued development of both infrastructure and the Iraqi government).

The Left will be out in force tomorrow to reiterate all the talking points that were just torn to shreds. I'll save my energy for that.

Pay No Attention to The War Behind the Curtain

2005-06-28T07:53:00.000-07:00

I skipped commenting on the Supreme Court's rulings yesterday and I'm going to take a permanent pass today; most of my thoughts have been already been covered elsewhere.

At any rate it's already old news, dropped by the media in favor of President Bush's press conference tonight. Even lovable loser John Kerry has crawled out of the woodwork to share the speech he would be giving this evening if Pro-Bush aliens at Area 51 hadn't hacked the voting machines in Ohio. The "speech" itself is that same old rhetoric that failed to get him elected last year, but what's missing is more interesting. The Democrats would like you to forget, but Iraq isn't the only war that's still being fought. Anyone remember Afghanistan?

The last time that conflict received any real press was when Nancy Pelosi triumphantly announced that "The war in Afghanistan is over"; triumphant not because America was victorious mind you, but because it meant we had to open the gates a Guantanamo and let the oppressed Taliban fighters free. Her argument might be worth debating if it wasn't for the pesky fact that the war in Afghanistan is still going on. Guess they don't cover that sort of thing in the San Francisco Chronicle.

As much as I'd like to chalk it up to pure ignorance, I believe the Democrats are ignoring Afghanistan for a specific reason. The leaders of the Democratic party never have supported the War on Terror. Despite all the belly-aching about Rove's comments last week, if they had their way we'd have never entered into war with Afghanistan or Iraq. Instead we would have taken the Clinton approach to the bombing of the USS Cole or the American embassies in Africa: lob a few bombs, make some arrests and call it a day.

After 9/11 however, the American public would never support that approach, so the Left needed to play along. Enter Afghanistan, a popular war that Dems could always keep in their back-pockets if something like Rove's remarks were ever leveled at them. This strategy creates a problem however, since it effectively hampers their ability to critique future conflicts. The solution? Create a public perception that "their" war was a big success: clean, quick, and painless. At the same time, paint any other conflicts as bloody, costly, and a quagmire.

So far the strategy is working, but President Bush has the opportunity tonight to refocus the debate. While he will certainly talk up all our successes in Iraq, he needs stress that the War Against Terror is ongoing all over the world, and pulling out of Iraq doesn't solve any problems, it just makes one worse. Democrats have created a false perception of this war; it's time to pull back the curtain.

The Enemy of My Enemy

2005-06-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know it's a big day in the SCOTUS, but before that completely consumes the news cycle I want make a quick point.

Considering the uproar over Rove's remarks last week, the Left missed a perfect opportunity this weekend to prove that they can stand with President Bush and condemn a common enemy. Not only is there no commentary on the Iranian elections to that effect, but some liberals can't even suppress their smile:

"Excuse Me, Mr. President?
A question for George Bush: where were the Iranians you stand with, those who stand for freedom and democracy, on Friday? They must not have been at polls, for arch-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected the next president of the Islamic Republic in a landslide. Maybe they bought into your idea that the Iranian elections are a sham, or maybe they were too busy buying chadors and long-sleeved shirts in preparation for a return to strict Islamic codes of behavior, but despite some questions of fraud and voter intimidation, Ahmadinejad won with enough of a margin to put to rest the idea that Iranians are ready for regime-change. "

Real nice Hooman; a victory for religious oppression, a victory for radical Islam, and a victory for terrorism, but a loss for George Bush and that is reason enough to gloat. Spare me the tears the next time people accuse you of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

**Update**

In case you have any doubts that this election is very bad news.

Life, and Death, and Little Green Frogs

2005-06-24T09:14:00.000-07:00

Well.....that was interesting! My sincere thanks to Michelle Malkin and all the other bloggers who linked to the site yesterday and drove more traffic here than we've had since we started. Hopefully some of yesterday's visitors will continue to stop by, otherwise we'll just have to wait and see if lightening strikes twice.

Rather than try for a repeat blockbuster performance, I'd like to continue the tradition of keeping Friday pretty light. I just picked up Michael Crichton's book State of Fear, another techno-thriller-sci-fi extravaganza from the man who invented the genre. I find that his books are only as good as the subject matter (the story's always basically the same), so I was pleased to see dinosaurs or intelligent nanobots replaced by environmental extremists as the antagonists in this one.

Only a few pages in so I can't comment on the book itself, but the premise gave me an idea. I did a Google for global warming, just to see how much of a fuss was still being made about the earth's impending doom. Even I was surprised by what I found:

And that was just the first page of results published in the last 24 hours. Well, like you, I was starting to get a little scared. Surely they wouldn't be sounding the alarm so loudly if we weren't in dire peril. It's not like these people go around calling just anything an impending catastrophe.

Oh wait, yes they do.

**Update** Apparently things got even worse over the weekend. I like the second subheading in this article: "APOCALYPSE NOW"

While You Were Busy Protesting The Patriot Act...

2005-06-23T08:45:00.000-07:00

...the government took your house. I'm sure the residents of New London, Connecticut will be happy to know that while their houses are being demolished, their library records will be safely locked away.

I hate to comment on a Supreme Court ruling before the actual opinion is released, but this is too outrageous to let simmer:

"A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights."

The case in a nutshell is that the city was suing individual homeowners who refused to sell their homes in order to make way for corporate development.The city's main contention was that the case fit within "the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for 'public use.'" Although the city planned to build a large corporate center, they argued that the additional jobs and tax revenues would serve the public, and therefore fulfilled the "public use" condition.

If you've been drinking the Left's Kool-Aid, you'd reasonably assume that the liberal judges on the court stood up for the little guy, while conservative ogres like Scalia and Thomas sided with big business. Hell, they probably volunteered to drive the bulldozers.

Open your eyes Little One, it's time to wake up to your socialist paradise.

What the Left didn't tell you is that the little guy is only worth protecting if he belongs to some larger, underprivileged group. The plaintiffs in this case were small business owners, and lived in Victorian Era houses; the state should be redistributing their wealth, not protecting it. Individual rights be damned, the greater good must prevail, the bourgeois must be defeated, the Motherland must survive!!!

Whoa, got a little wrapped up in the character there. At any rate let's look on the bright side: sure you're homeless, but Justice Ginsburg and the rest of the ACLU will defend your right to squat in the library, and anything you read while you're there will be strictly confidential.

Liberals Go Parading Through The Cemetary

2005-06-22T07:51:00.000-07:00

Today I'd like to take one last look at the Terri Schiavo case. Specifically, I think it's worth taking stock of who's still talking about her, and in what context.

Up first, the Christian Defense Coalition. These are the bogeymen that want to break into your house and forcibly convert you, or so the Left would like you to believe. They released this statement yesterday in response to Michael Schiavo's distasteful choice of grave marker for Terri:

"By this one repugnant act, Michael Schiavo has revealed what we and the family knew all along. This was not a loving and caring husband that was concerned about the welfare of Terri. This was a self-centered and hateful man who believed Terri died 15 years ago and was doing all within his power to see that Terri was dehydrated and starved to death. This calls into question the role of Michael being Terri's guardian. For how could he have possibly looked out for her best interests when he felt she was already dead?"

Now whether you agree with the statement or not, it's hard to construe this statement as a political attack. It reads simply as the continued defense of Terri's worth from a group who believed it was acting in her best interests. These are the people that Frist and Delay were supposedly in cahouts with; how dastardly.

Contrast that with Howard Dean's remarks this month:

"[Republican's] government is just big enough to fit inside Terri Schiavo's bed in the nursing home. We can do better than that.''

and

"We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on [as a campaign issue]"

Granted Dean's a nutjob, but this sentiment has been repeated again and again by the Left: Terri Schiavo is an issue to be exploited in the coming elections. Odd when you consider this is the principal charge the Dems have leveled against Republicans on the issue. Meanwhile, the care for her as a human being that the Right has expressed is no where to be found on the Left. If they can't give her that, can't they at least let her rest in peace?

Not Your Uncle McCain's Bipartisanship

2005-06-21T08:04:00.000-07:00

Back from an unintentional day off, sometimes things just get away from you...

I'm posting a long article today so I'll keep the commentary short. As ugly as the partisanship in America has gotten, I still hate "bipartisanship" more. At least in a traditional partisan debate you have two sides standing up for what they believe in. Bi-partisanship takes that balance and mutates it into a mushy middle ground where neither side is happy and nothing productive is accomplished, yet the participants get to brag about their momentous achievement (see: Filibuster Compromise).

The key to real bipartisanship is finding a cause that both sides can actually agree on but have avoided coming to a consensus on for political reasons. Illegal immigration is one such issue. No one wants to touch it for fear of alienating the Hispanic vote, but a vocal majority of the country from both sides of the aisle is demanding something be done.

In that spirit, I want to reprint a speech given by Richard Lamm, the former Democratic governor of Colorado. His speech is hard to ignore because it simply makes sense, and directly address the legitimate fears people have. I'd appreciate the opinion of anyone who disagrees, so without further ado:

I Have A Plan To Destroy America Richard D. Lamm
I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, lets destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." here is my plan:
I. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way:
The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon-all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

II. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
III. We can make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic monthly recently: ...the apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together. I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than Americans, emphasizing their similarities.
IV. Having done all this, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated - I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school.
V. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all
minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority - I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
VI. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would "celebrate diversity." "Diversity" is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other-that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse," peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia. Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf's world history tells us:
The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors . . . (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions . . .) If we can put the emphasis on the "pluribus," instead of the "unum," we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
VII. Then I would place all these subjects off limits - make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like "racist", "xenophobe" that halts argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of "victimology", I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra - "that because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good." I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.
VIII. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book Mexifornia — this book is dangerous — it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please — if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed — please, please — don't buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." — Noam Chomsky,
American linguist and us media and foreign policy critic.

Tom and Katie Friday

2005-06-17T07:22:00.000-07:00

In honor of this morning's big announcement, The Limburg Letter would like to do a special Friday Feature. Since the rest of the press will spend most of the day covering these two idiots, I would like to shine the spotlight on two other deserving morons who might not get the coverage they deserve.

We'll start by directing your attention to one Sen. Barack Obama. It's not the first time we've checked in on our friend from Illinois; last time he made the cut was for his fund-raising efforts on the behalf of Sen. Byrd. It struck us at the Letter as kind of odd that a black Senator and champion of civil rights would be out supporting a former Klansman, but apparently Sen. Byrd's activities are water under the bridge, long forgiven by understanding Democrats. Unfortunately, it looks like maybe Sen Obama has had a change of heart:

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Thursday he was troubled by racially insensitive comments attributed more than a decade ago to a woman the Bush administration has tapped for a top State Department job and threatened to block her nomination until his concerns were addressed."

Then again, maybe he's just a spineless idiot who's content to have his strings pulled by the Democratic leadership. Disgraceful.

Of course it's one thing to make a fool of yourself domestically, and quite another to do it on the world stage. That just happens to be Sean Penn's specialty however, and his current assignment reporting on the Iranian "elections" is no exception. Take this gem for example:

"The actor caused a stir when he attended Friday prayers last week and heard the "Death to America" chants. But on a visit to Iran's Film Museum in Tehran this week he told a student that those oft-heard chants hurt Iran-U.S. relations.'I understand the nature of where it comes from and what its intention is,' he said. 'But I don't think it's productive because I think the message goes to the American people and it is interpreted very literally.'"

First of all, he "understand[s] the nature of where it comes from?" Oh...that's right; Sean's a member of the "we got what was coming to us on 9/11" crowd. How very deep of him to understand and sympathize with the people trying to kill us, no wonder he's an actor. Just one thing Sean, the reason those statements are "interpreted very literally" is because these people flew planes full of Americans into our buildings ! My God, how big an idiot (not to mention a complete ass) can one man be? At any rate, it puts Tom and Katie into perspective...

Please Tell Me I'm Wrong

2005-06-16T08:26:00.000-07:00

This morning Ms. Limburg and I were discussing Sen. Durbin's now infamous remarks, and we eventually settled on the only possible explanation being that's he's a complete and utter moron. It's like he did a Google for "really bad people" and just wrote down the first three names that popped up. With all the attention it's been getting, I expected a full apology from Dick by today, but instead we get this:

"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure."

And it gets worse. The Daily Kos, a virtual Mecca for the new Democratic Party, is falling over itself to defend Durbin's remarks, declaring that:

"And let's not forget, "torture" was used as a rationale for this war -- as in, we'll invade and end the torture. Of course, none of that has happened. The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command. And Dick Durbin had the balls to say it so on the Senate
floor."

This simply makes no sense. Liberals with half a brain cell are trying to distance themselves from the Gitmo accusations, considering it's starting to look more like Club Med the more we hear about it. When a US Senator makes a statement like this, anyone who ever wants to be taken seriously again should run as far from him as possible. It's not happening.

Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy set this up to pull one over on the Right. If the Left stands behind Durbin's statements, then any hope that the Democrats can play a constructive role in the War on Terror is gone forever. They've lost touch with reality.

The Gitmo Bait and Switch

2005-06-15T09:02:00.000-07:00

This is why you can't debate liberals. See, debate involves one side presenting a case supported with facts, and the other side refuting those facts in their own case. Liberals prefer to present a case, let the Right dispute those facts, and then sidestep the rebuttal by producing an entirely new case. It's a permanent stay of execution that usually involves eventually returning back to the original case, thereby "proving" it.

Seems we've finally come to that point in the Guantanamo Bay debate. Over the weekend, Rep. Duncan Hunter presented a booklet of regulations for handling prisoners at Gitmo. It detailed such abusive conduct as painting arrows toward Mecca to facilitate daily prayers, and a menu that's better than what I was served in my high school cafeteria. Now aside from being pissed off that they're paying for such nonsense, the average American reads this and wonders why the Left keeps crying about the conditions down there.

Rather than answer that question, the Left just slams on the brakes, throws the bandwagon in reverse, and races backwards to 2002. You may remember that it was the year the liberals made a full court press for full Geneva Convention rights for detainees. The average American responded with "they can all rot in hell for all we care" and that banner was quietly lowered when Abu Ghraib became the new cause de jour. Now, right on cue, the Left is trying to resurrect that argument. A two-second Google returned two breathless editorials, arguing that they were just kidding about the torture stuff, the real issue is that the "...most basic human rights aren’t respected, such as the right to know what he’s allegedly done, when he’s going to be tried, and how much time he’s going to have to spend in jail. "

Aside from the fact that it's a moronic argument (now "basic human rights "includes giving foreign combatants the same legal protection as an American citizen accused of shoplifting?), America has already rejected this garbage. Then again, in 2002 9/11 was still fresh in everyone's mind. It would be a shame if this argument sways anyone, as it would suggest we've already forgotten that this is a war, and we were attacked first.

The Dark Side of Capitalism

2005-06-14T08:01:00.000-07:00

I hate to see this sort of thing. If for no other reason than that it fulfills all the worst stereotypes of the Left, Microsoft's complicity in the censorship of China's blogsphere is reprehensible. Of course it's not just Microsoft, or solely American companies for that matter. Just today there was an Australian editorial in the Wall Street Journal pleading that businesses not trade principle for access to China's economy:

"China is not a normal country, nor a particularly friendly one. Despite 20 years of reform, it is still a one-party state ruled by an authoritarian regime which ruthlessly suppresses those who challenge it."

Usually the desire to be seen as a responsible corporate citizen keeps companies from making decisions like this. Unfortunately the potential profits for Microsoft outweigh the potential losses caused by an angry public. There are good organizations, and good publications (like the Wall Street Journal) that are sounding the alarm. America needs to listen.

Patriotic Dissent vs. Weak-Kneed Flip-Flopping

2005-06-13T08:14:00.000-07:00

Moxiegrrrl, my good friend with a bad case of liberalism, posted this story on her website and asked for the Republican response. As weary as I am of debating Iraq, the interview I read this morning with the foreign minister of Iraq gave me renewed enthusiasm. In that spirit I offer my response.

I don't care if it's a United States congressman or the guy who bags my groceries, their opinion on the war is only as good as the reason they arrived at it. Lets examine Mr. Jones' grievances:

"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed — it's almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded — and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there."

His argument boils down to the fact that A.) freeing Iraq is all well and good so long as no one gets hurt, and B.) because the assumptions we originally made about Iraq were incorrect, it renders the cause null and void. To members of the Left this reasoning is totally sound, and you have to admit that its simplicity makes it appealing.

Above all it's politically convenient, as illustrated by Moxie's eagerness to embrace Jones as a model for other Republicans. Thank you, but I'd rather get my dissenting views from people who have exhibited a desire to understand the complexities of the situation. For example, here are two articles from reporters on the ground. They're not flattering, and they're not pretty, but for someone who wants to develop an informed opinion on the situation, they're essential.

If you're willing to look, the Right continues to offer constructive criticism of the way the war has been handled. It's exactly the type of dissent that people call "the highest form of patriotism". Mr. Jones' tired talking points are not.

Smiling Dictators and Sneering Deans

2005-06-10T07:41:00.000-07:00

Why can't Howard Dean keep his mouth shut? I don't mean stupid things he keeps saying (that's just because he's a moron), I'm referring to the fact that he always has a sort of half smile, half sneer when he's on camera.

I just noticed it this morning watching the video from his and Reid's press conference yesterday. Is he trying to keep his teeth dry or something? Dean's a doctor, maybe he knows something we don't.

On the smiling dictators front, check out this article posted yesterday on FoxNews.com:

"Four of the 14 Cubans intercepted at sea aboard a vintage taxi converted into a boat will be allowed to stay in the United States because they have valid immigration documents, but the others will be sent back to Cuba, U.S. officials said Thursday."

Wait a minute...I thought we opposed illegal immigration because we're all racists, why would we let these people in just because they have valid immigration papers? What kind of message does this send to potential illegal immigrants everywhere?

Not only does this article give us a great example of how immigration is supposed to work, we get the added treat of a peek inside Castro's worker's paradise:

"Diaz and his family last year won the documents in an annual lottery in Cuba for legal travel to the United States. But the communist government of President Fidel Castro refused to let the family leave."

I'm sure that's a mistake. Cuba is a free and progressive society. Fidel probably just wanted to make sure they stayed long enough to get their new government sponsored rice cooker and destroy all their old "capitalist" light bulbs.

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

2005-06-09T08:12:00.000-07:00

Who could be against getting young people to vote? Sure they're immature, uninformed, reactionary, and worse, but some day they'll grow up, and when that happens we want them to be active citizens. To that end, Rock the Vote always seemed like a good idea; pander to the young people enough to get them interested in politics, then get them to the polls. I should have known better. After all, what do you get when you combine self-righteous adults with impressionable kids? Liberal activism!

According to their website

"Rock the Vote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization, founded in 1990....The goal of Rock the Vote’s media campaigns and street team activities is to increase youth voter turnout."

I don't even know where to start; how about the "Rock the Vote Awards" held last night. Apparently the politicians rocking the vote the hardest this year were Bill Clinton, Barack O' Bama, and, to keep up appearances, John McCain. Two far-left Democrats and one weak-kneed Republican: the very definition of non-partisan.

Of course one could just dismiss it as inviting the politicians the kids are most into (O' Bama is pretty street), but how do you explain this:

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, a major campaign to convince young people not to support Social Security Reform. That's like the RNC starting a "Dump Affirmative Action" movement at Morehouse College. Actually it's worse, since you have to get kids to care about it first, before you convince them to oppose it. Listing the Democrats talking points probably isn't gonna get it done. Maybe they'll have luck with their other non-partisan causes, like government funded healthcare or fighting the nonexistent draft.

If you're like me, you wonder how the Democratic Party has any members at this point. Here's your answer. Get 'em while they're young and dumb, scare them into believing all the garbage to feed them, and then turn them loose at the polls. Oh yea, and sell them a $15 baby blue trucker hat if you can.

UPDATE: The National Review has picked up this story, but Brash had it first. Tell your friends.

A Liberal's Guide to Judicial Activism

2005-06-08T09:07:00.000-07:00

I have to apologize for my post today. My internet connection must be all messed up because nothing I'm reading is making sense. For instance, if I go to the Supreme Court's website, I find an opinion re-criminalizing medical marijuana use and the sole dissenters are Justices Thomas, Scalia, and O' Connor. Now I know that can't be right, because Thomas and Scalia are extremist right wing judges; they couldn't possibly disagree with a thing like that, especially if Bush supports it.

I though it might just be the website, so I went to the Wall Street Journal's page, but it's the same problem. They have an editorial explicitly stating that they oppose the legalization of medical marijuana, but then it goes on to complain about the decision! This is crazy, if you don't like something, you should be happy when the court criminalizes it and vice versa. This is making me nuts, I'm gonna do a quick reboot and try again.

Ok, that's much better. Must have been a problem with the router or something, because I just paid a visit to the People for the American Way online and everything seems in order. The site now correctly states that

"[Appeals Court nominee William] Pryor, who has used the power of his office to engage in extreme, right-wing judicial activism, must not be confirmed to this powerful lifetime position. "

After all,

"Pryor defended an Alabama statute prohibiting so-called "partial birth" abortions even though the law was plainly unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the preservation of the health of the pregnant woman, as required by Roe v. Wade"

and Pryor filed briefs arguing for severe restrictions on federal authority in

"United States v. Morrison...in which the Court ruled 5-4 that the federal remedy for victims of sexual assault and violence in the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional"

See, that makes a lot more sense. Judicial activism is when you disagree with a court ruling that something is unconstitutional, unless of course that thing is a law like the Violence Against Women Act. Then you should know that its constitutionality is irrelevant; to claim otherwise is obvious activism.

I'm just glad we have the Left has given us such a simple way to decide cases. Otherwise we'd have to rely on know-nothing hacks like Thomas and Scalia.

UPDATE: Just found this perfect case study on The Nation today:
"Of course, the federal government has a right--indeed, a responsibility--to intervene when the lives and liberties of Americans are threatened by the states, as has been the case when federal authorities have acted to protect the rights of racial minorities, women and people with disabilities. But to intervene with the express intent of denying Americans with serious diseases a generally well-regarded treatment option represents the worst sort of meddling by the federal government. "

For the Record

2005-06-07T08:23:00.000-07:00

I'm assuming everyone has already heard about a case like this (unfortunately it's not the first one), but for the posterity I want to record it here.

"A 19-year-old (Mr. Flores) accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry two fetuses by stepping on her stomach was convicted Monday of two counts of murder...Erica Basoria, 17, acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy; she could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion."

It's actually even worse than that. Before enlisting her boyfriend in the do-it-yourself abortion, Ms. Basoria

"...started jogging and hitting herself to induce a miscarriage."

I honestly wouldn't believe it if I hadn't read it for myself.

And let's not forget, the Left believes that:

Ms. Basoria committed no crime
Mr. Flores committed no crime
There is no victim in this scenario
Ms. Basoria is a mature enough woman to make a decision about abortion without parental guidance or approval
Had Ms. Basoria not been pregnant, Mr. Flores should be sent to jail, even if Ms. Basoria was not willing to press charges

Feel free to add your own, but I can't do anymore. It hurts my head to have to think like a liberal.

EXCLUSIVE Limburg Uncovers Evidence of the Worst Abuse Yet

2005-06-06T07:32:00.000-07:00

So this report on the alleged Koran abuses at Guantanamo Bay was released last Friday, and liberal heads everywhere exploded with righteous indignation. In a nutshell, it revealed that:

"... of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed. He could not determine conclusively whether the other four took place."

and specifically:

"In the March incident, as described in the report, the guard had left his observation post to go outside to urinate. The wind blew his urine through an air vent into the cell block. The guard's supervisor reprimanded him and assigned him to gate guard duty, where he had no contact with detainees, for the rest of his assignment at Guantanamo Bay."

Unfortunately, most were already sans head before they got to the part that stated

"Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Korans. 'These included using a Koran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Koran, attempting to flush a Koran down the toilet and urinating on the Koran,' Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for the detainees' motives."

If you haven't studied the Left as closely as I have, you might be tempted to take the above excerpt and repeat it to every gloating Lib you meet. Resist this urge! If this news of flushing and urination starts making the rounds on the liberal blogs, we'll have to deal with new allegations of the worst abuse of all: denying prisoners access to this.

The Company You Keep

2005-06-03T08:14:00.000-07:00

"Cheney is hated as the most cruel monster and bloodthirsty beast, as he has drenched various parts of the world in blood"

I know what you're thinking, but no, Howard Dean didn't say it. Neither did MoveOn.org, although I'm sure they find it hilarious and agree wholeheartedly. This quote actually comes from a Foreign Ministry spokesman for North Korea. Yes, that North Korea.

The quote itself can be dismissed as a desperate insult from a bunch of pathetic fools, but what does that say about people in this country who echo the sentiment? When North Korea says something like that, you can almost see the sarcastic grin, but the Left can make such a declaration with a straight face. Just this week, we had Amnesty International (which is as nonpartisan as Barbara Boxer) declaring that the US was running a Gulag in Guantanamo Bay, further fueling the "torture" allegations that always seem to make it above the fold in the NYT.

Am I the only one that finds it odd that allegations of torture by the US and UK is front page news everyday, yet the only time North Korea makes the news is when they call Cheney a "bloodthirsty beast"? I would never accuse the MSM of trying to manipulate public opinion, but maybe it's because their favorite story would suffer by comparison. For example, which of these quotes do you think people would remember if they were placed side by side?

"In one photograph, the 22-year-old reservist held a leash looped around the neck of a hooded, naked prisoner. Another showed her next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid, while a third depicted England pointing at a prisoner's genitals as a cigarette dangled from her lips."
"In interrogations aimed at forcing a confession, Lee, now 56, was also subjected to water torture. She says guards force-fed her water by pushing the spout of a canister into her mouth. They laid a wooden plank across her abdomen--and pressed down, forcing water out through her mouth, nose, and bladder. "It feels like your intestines are exploding. There's no way even to describe the pain you feel," she recalls, with no trace of emotion. "

Maybe forgetting about North Korea was a simple oversight by the media, but Amnesty International seems to have made the same mistake. They've only published one report on North Korea in the last year and a half, but at least three concerning allegations of US torture. Interestingly, one of the only journalists reporting on the PRK is liberal journalist Christopher Hitchens, who's been crucified by the Left for supporting the war and trying to put the Abu Ghraib allegations in perspective.

No one (that I'm aware of) is claiming that no abuse took place, but the people responsible are being punished, and the press should be applauded for the role they played in making that happen. It is one thing however, to be a watchdog, and another to be an attack dog. When members of the press and a majority of the Left are parroting statements made by the world's worst human rights abuser in order to criticize the world's best human rights defender, they have shifted to the latter.

I'm Sure It Sounds Great When They Read It to Themselves

2005-06-02T08:12:00.000-07:00

As a long suffering reader of most of the popular liberal blogs, I think I've finally cracked the template they use to come up with posts everyday. I assume there's a template involved at least, since one would be hard-pressed to produce such a consistent level of crap day in and day out (a million monkeys chained to a million typewriters after all). To illustrate my point we'll use The Huffington Post, a blog that really raised the bar in terms of quantity and....well, the opposite of quality.

As a liberal blogger, one must assume one of two states of mind when preparing to write: taking yourself too seriously, or thinking you're actually funny. Neither one is really worse than the other, although each evokes its own unique cringe from any reader with half a brain cell. Rarely, a writer will become confused and assume both in the same post (See: anything by Michael Moore), but we'll save that for an advanced class, as it frequently induces vomiting.

Randall Robinson's post today is what inspired this topic. It's so textbook, so nauseating, that the world would be a worse place if I didn't bring it to someone's attention. Randall must have partied too hard this weekend, because he's just getting around to the Memorial Day edition of his anti-war rant.To open he declares "I can no longer bear it", and follows by dropping the bombshell that soldiers are dying in Iraq. Wow, I had no idea! Luckily Randall has a simple solution to stop the bloodshed. He proposes this incredibly insightful question to the President:

"[W]ould the war in Iraq have been worth the loss of a single human life, had that life been yours?"

No doubt President Bush just dropped his copy of the article and muttered, "My God, what have I done?" Bravo Randall, Bravo.

Don't worry though folks, liberals aren't all doom and gloom. Take Gina Nahai, a fun-loving Lib (I'm just guessing her bio reads something like this) who isn't afraid to stick it to the man...and leave them rolling in the aisles! Gina woke up with the hilarious idea of suggesting Bush invade Vatican City in order to bring democracy to those repressed citizens. What brilliant satire, I mean for God's sake , they don't even allow gay porn to be shown in the Sistine Chapel! Not one to be concerned with actually being funny, Gina runs with this idea for about 2,000 words, and manages to never make a valid point. Incredible.

Sometimes, in my weakest moments, I fantasize about becoming one of them. I could just wake up, write an article about how Cheney hates minorities, and go back to bed. It's tempting, but I think I'll pass. I'd really hate to have to punch myself in the face every time I look in the mirror.

The Original Left-Wing Conspiracy

2005-06-01T06:00:00.000-07:00

Well, it's official. Mark "Who the Hell is Mark Felt" Felt has officially come forward as the mysterious Deep Throat. This is fitting, since anyone born after 1980 is equally familiar with (What the Hell was) Watergate. They might know it had something to do with Nixon being a very, very evil man, but that's all their teachers would tell them. There's a very easy "Deep Throat" joke here too but I'll leave it on the table.

I admit I had to do a little research to figure out who this guy was, but I was actually surprised at how many people pinned him as Deep Throat. The Atlantic published an article almost 15 years ago pegging him as the prime candidate. I don't think this is an insignificant fact, because how they came to the correct conclusion says a lot about this man's motives, and will hopefully lay to rest the "Deep Throat as an American Hero" myth that's still being thrown around today.

I won't go into great detail because I'd only be plagiarizing The Atlantic's article. To summarize, Felt was the number three guy in the FBI under Hoover. When Hoover kicked off Felt, by his own admission, considered himself the heir-apparent. Nixon, in an attempt to break apart what had become an autocratic organization under Hoover, immediately appointed Assistant Attorney General Patrick Grey. Naturally the FBI didn't like this, least of all Felt. Yada Yada Yada, Nixon get's impeached.

The "Yada Yada Yada" has always been that Woodward and Bernstein made contact with a concerned whistle-blower to take down a corrupt president, but in light of this revelation, let's look at what was actually going on. After Hoover died, there was a vacuum of power in Washington. Nixon's White House rushed to fill it, and the FBI needed another avenue if they ever hoped to get it back. Enter the MSM. Eager to dig up dirt on Nixon, they essentially allowed themselves to be used as a pawn in the power struggle between two establishments that they hated. Luckily for them, they got to write the history for 30 years: W, B, and DT were the heroes that saved the Republic, Nixon was the Antichrist until liberals realized that it's actually Bush.

Somehow I doubt publishers are in a hurry to correct the textbooks. The "David and Goliath" nature of the story, along with the assumed purity of the protagonists, makes for history that's too good to correct. And besides, if anyone actually learned who Mark Felt was, they might stumble upon the fact that he was convicted of approving illegal break-ins (God I love irony), only to be pardoned by some insignificant president named Reagan.

Ari Berman Has Fun with Numbers

2005-05-31T08:19:00.000-07:00

Thank you Mr. Berman.

After a long weekend in Vegas there's nothing better than an easy post. Fortunately I'm a leading scholar in the study of the "Ari Algorithm"; in layman's terms:

Ari Berman + Polls or Statistics = Newsweek caliber reporting.

Rather than spend a paragraph ridiculing him, let's cut to the chase. Ari's article argues for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and cites popular support from the public as one of the reasons:

"The majority of America must then be liberals, judging from recent public opinion polls. Iraq tops the list of American concerns in the latest Gallup poll, with three-fourths of those respondents advocating an immediate withdrawal. Sixty-four percent of conservative Democrats in a Pew survey want the troops brought home as soon as possible. "

His first point, that three-fourths of American's advocate withdrawal is an outright lie, painfully twisted from actual data. I'd go into it here, but someone was helpful enough to do it in the comments section of his article. Rather than beat the horse Ari left to die, I'll take up point two.

I have a hard time even wrapping my head around this one. If you remove his first point, the paragraph reads as such: "The majority of America is liberal (by which he means anti-war) because 64% of conservative Democrats want the troops brought home". That's akin to saying the majority of America is pro-lynching because 64% of the KKK supports it. And even if you can follow Ari's tortured logic, the poll he's referencing explicitly contradicts his reasoning. The nationwide poll (the total of all the broken down interest groups) shows that a majority of Americans support staying in Iraq, but maybe he didn't count that since it includes right-wing extremists.

Here's the damnedest thing of all, something that's going to require further study of the equation; in this case Ari is so wrong, he's actually right. The poll reports that 52% of liberals support staying in Iraq as well, so to summarize: the majority of America is liberal, they both support keeping troops in Iraq. To paraphrase the old cliche "From the pens of morons..."

John Kerry Wishes He Thought of It

2005-05-26T08:25:00.000-07:00

French leaders are in a full-bore panic this morning over the impending referendum on the EU Constitution. Reports are that it will it will be voted down conclusively, effectively throwing a giant wrench into Jacques Chirac's plan for world domination (or whatever).

What interests me is not so much the outcome, but the process itself. Many of the EU member countries didn't even hold a referendum, instead letting the parliament decide. Countries find this convenient because it avoids all that voting nonsense, and guarantees that Diebold won't be able to rig the election. No doubt Chirac would have preferred that method, but pressure from the peasants forced his hand.

Now that it's apparent that the constitution won't pass in France, the sitting president of the EU has come up with a novel idea:

"The countries that have said No will have to ask themselves the question again. And if we don't manage to find the right answer, the treaty will not enter into force"

Of course, a do-over! What better way to guarantee a fair (and correct) outcome? Let me remind you that these are the people that would presumably be running the "global test" John Kerry talked about during the campaign. Nothing like democracy, European style.

Special Note: The Limburg Letter will go on hiatus until Monday. I'll be doing some field work in Las Vegas, important stuff. Enjoy the weekend.

New Fools vs. Old Hacks

2005-05-25T08:11:00.000-07:00

Seems like the rest of the blogsphere has moved past the filibuster compromise already, but I'm still decompressing. In particular I'm having a good time watching the Left settle on a collective opinion. Actually make that collective opinions, because a very distinct line has been drawn in this case between New and Old Guard of the Democratic faithful.

Yesterday I jumped the gun a bit saying the Left had settled into "cautious acceptance". I hadn't yet visited my friends over at The Nation, who are definitely not happy about the compromise. David Corn summed up their opinion by asking the timeless question "Did the Democrats get screwed--or screw themselves? " Now I've been telling Democrats to screw themselves for years; I can't imagine why they would start listening to me now. Either way, it's clear that for this group the entire filibuster debate was about the judges. They're wrong on every level of course, but at least they're consistent in their socialist ideology.

The fools over at Daily Kos can make no such claim, unless "We Hate Bush" passes as some kind of higher philosophy. Since we all know that Bush is pure evil, nothing but total victory would have been acceptable. The very idea of compromise is like sympathy for the devil. That said, now that they've "lost" this debate, they don't seem to really care about the consequences. It's the fight they're interested in, the issue itself is secondary. This morning they've already moved on, warning Democratic Senators that if they compromise on Social Security too, "all hell" will break loose. After all:

"Why any Democrat would want to give bush "half a victory" rather than an anvil is beyond me, and completely and utterly unacceptable."

And so the Left continues it's slide from smart people with crazy ideas, to crazy people with no ideas. These are the people that made Howard Dean the DNC chairman. It's the Kozies, the New Guard, that run the party now.

The Night the Lights Went Out in Limburg

2005-05-24T13:39:00.000-07:00

I'm still speechless. I've been all over the web, through the blogsphere and down both ends of the dial, and after all that I still don't know what to say. Everyone has their opinion about last night's "compromise" between 7 Democrats and 7 Demo.... I mean Republicans. The right is mostly furious, while the left has settled into a sort cautious acceptance. I tend to vacillate between the two.

On one hand I'm still pissed. I can't help but feel betrayed by these senators. To throw two of the nominees under the bus like that shows how badly these people covet the "moderate" title, especially if it means they get to stand next to John McCain. On the other hand, I can't believe Frist had the votes to drop the bomb, and letting the Dems kill it with a full vote would have been much worse than this deal. Furthermore, at least some of the Republican senators seem to think they can still back out of this thing if the Dems are acting irresponsibly during future confirmations (does the sun rise in the east?). By then these three judges will already be confirmed, so even if we're back to the status quo at that point, we'll still have 3 small victories.

Now that I'm over last night's freak out, I'm comfortable with "wait and see"; I don't know what else to do...

So Pissed...

2005-05-23T19:49:00.000-07:00

What are we gonna do with our party?

Michelle Malkin says it all.

Ari Berman Tries His Best

2005-05-23T07:46:00.000-07:00

Ari Berman (writer of The Daily Outrage Blog on thenation.com) is really incredible. It takes a special human being to write a blog for one of the Holy Books of the liberal movement, and consistently screw up your stories. It's like amateur hour over at The Nation every time he logs on, yet he still shows up to work each day with his head held high. We should all have that kind of self-esteem.

I've actually made a game of finding his mistakes each time he posts, for example let's look at today's masterpiece. His fourth bullet looks promising, which is to say I know he's completely wrong:

"Forget Al-Qaeda, violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are now one of the deadliest threats to American security, the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms told a Senate panel this week. As Bin Laden plots from a cave and insurgents target US soldiers daily in Iraq, tree huggers and fur haters have emerged as ripe for the picking. "

Oh Ari, it's so cute when you don't even read the headline of the story you're linking to; you have the blissful ignorance of Mr. Magoo. Just so you have it when you sit down to write your retraction, it's "FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism". That's domestic terrorism Ari, as in not international, as in not Al Qaeda. A quick search on the FBI's website will provide you with a thorough explanation of the differences if you're still having trouble.

These are so much fun (and so easy) I'm gonna keep posting them until Ari figures out that you can't just make stuff up when you're posting your sources. Nice try Ari, you get an "A" for effort.

Harry "Jelly of the Month" Reid

2005-05-20T08:21:00.000-07:00

As much as I like the nickname "Dusty" Harry, I'll always think of him as my own little Jelly of the Month Club, a gift that keeps giving, all year long. When Lil' Harry rises to give a speech in the Senate, projecting all the authority of the AV Club President, I can relax knowing tomorrow's post will pretty much write itself. Yesterday, he didn't disappoint.

Reid got started with his defense of the filibuster by recalling this classic exchange between our founding fathers:

"A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it. Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate? Washington responded with a question of his own, 'Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?' 'To cool it,' Jefferson replied. To which Washington said; 'Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'"

Never mind the fact that this sounds suspiciously like something from Harry's copy of "Senate Fairy Tales and Bedtime Stories". If this statement supports the filibuster at all, it supports it as a delaying tactic, not a veto. In order to support that, Jefferson would have replied "So I can throw my saucer at the wall, and not have to drink it anymore."

Next Reid exhibited his mastery of the Constitution:

"Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts."

Um, yes Harry, and that's exactly what the founding fathers intended. Maybe he dozed off before his Mommy got to that story; I think it's towards the end.

Finally, Harry laments the current state of the government:

"Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy."

OK, listen up Reid (and all you Dems), because this is the last time I'm gonna say it. The president didn't elect himself. The Republican leadership didn't make you a minority. You are silenced and marginalized because no one voted for you. No one wants you making decisions, no one cares about what you have to say. You're a bunch of whining children and your threat to shut down the Senate if the "Nuclear Option" passes just reaffirms my image of you as the spoiled little kid who quits the game because he doesn't like losing and takes his football home with him too so no one else can play.

Oh, and keep up the good work, you little comedy gold mine you.

Only In America

2005-05-19T14:20:00.000-07:00

...can someone like this be a victim:

"Bob Levan bought season passes to Six Flags Great America for his daughters and their best friend, but he is worried he won't be able to ride the roller coasters with them because he is a convicted sex offender"

And no, this isn't a case of accidentally brushing up against a female co-worker:

"Levan was convicted of molesting an 8-year-old relative when he was 16. He served a brief jail sentence and underwent treatment in a mental health facility"

And the cherry on top?

"Andrea D. Lyon, president of the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, complained that the language sends the message that sex offenders are social outcasts despite whatever steps they may have taken to rehabilitate themselves."

My God, think we've taken the "I'm OK, You're OK" culture a bit too far?

With All Apologies to El Rushbo...

2005-05-19T10:01:00.000-07:00

See I told you so. In a couple of days Newsweek has gone from being bad guy to the victim. What a beautiful spin we weave. The Left has predictably fallen in line with the "Bush Lied First!" defense.

Just to demonstrate how laughable it is:

"Newsweek relied on faulty intelligence to write a magazine article. George W. Bush relied on faulty intelligence to start a war which has cost over $200 billion, and which has taken the lives of over 1600 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.Here's the difference. Newsweek didn't know its intelligence was phony. And Newsweek apologized. " - Bill Press

"My Fellow Americans, In the past few days, the White House asked for and got an apology and retraction from Newsweek for reporting that our military had defamed the Koran at Guantanamo Bay... in the spirit of consistency... I am today apologizing for the falsehoods that led to an invasion of Iraq that has led not to 17 but approximately 1600 American deaths, over 10,000 wounded, 100,000+ Iraqi deaths and to the collapse of esteem worldwide" - Mark Green speaking as George Bush

None of this crap merits serious analysis, but to be fair, at least it's better than Norman Mailer's contribution. Can we just put this guy in the ground yet? Clearly his quality of life can't be any better than Terri Schiavo's.

When I Grow Up, I Want to Be Like Dr. Phil

2005-05-18T06:06:00.000-07:00

Let's play a game. One of these things is not like the other, one of these...you get the idea.

George Patton/Douglas MacArthur/Dwight Eisenhower/Ellen DeGeneres

If you chose Ms. DeGeneres, you have half a brain cell. If you chose Douglas MacArthur, then your IQ is sufficiently low enough to be the creator of "Greatest American", a new special on the Discovery channel hosted by Matt Lauer. The idea is that America will go online and choose from 100 nominees the greatest American in history. While the idea sounds OK in theory, the execution is a train wreck.

First, there are the nominees themselves. Aside from TV's Ellen, we can choose from legends like John Edwards, George Lucas, Madonna, Barack Obama, and of course, Dr. Phil. These people are being offered as the peers of Einstein, FDR, and Martin Luther King. If Lauer can pull off those comparisons without cracking a smile, he might as well run for office.

While you could explain those choices as simple stupidity, a closer look reveals the true culprit: naked left-wing bias. For starters I offer you these two mini-bios from the website:

"During the administration of X, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic prosperity than at any other time in the nation's history. He turned the greatest fiscal deficit in American history into a surplus"

and

"He was known for being a prolific letter writer, esteemed for his love letters to his wife..."

Give up? The first was Bill Clinton, the second was Ronald Reagan. Love letters for God's sake. Do I have to go any further? OK, how about Rush Limbaugh, who was clearly added only so they could justify Michael Moore as well:

"Staunchly conservative political radio commentator Rush Limbaugh...[r]ecently he has been dogged by scandals involving prescription drug use and making alleged racist comments against Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb during a network football show."

Yup, that's pretty much all you have to know about him. Meanwhile we're reminded that John Edwards was named "America's Sexiest Politician" by People magazine.

I could go on with these for another 40 paragraphs, but I'll just let you visit the site for yourself. Of course none of this matters since the show will probably draw half a dozen viewers, but it's still hilarious.

The 24 Hour Spin-Cycle

2005-05-17T08:15:00.000-07:00

I'm glad I chose to sit one news-cycle out on this Newsweek story, because it's been interesting to watch it develop. It's a textbook case of how spin evolves in the age of blogs and 24-hour news channels. Lets review:

As everyone who doesn't get their news exclusively from Vanity Fair knows by now, Newsweek published an article about soldiers at Guantanamo Bay flushing the Koran during interrogations. The story sparked protests in Afghanistan that left 17+ dead. Yesterday the magazine announced they "might" have been wrong, today they formally retracted it. Rather than face the consequences of putting Bush-bashing ahead of responsible journalism, the Left began to spin furiously.

Take One: Richard Bradley, who's written for fine publications like "Mother Jones", came out of the gate early with this, a weak modification of the "Don't blame the messenger" defense :

"Predictably, the backlash has begun. 'People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said,' Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DeRita said, apparently referring to Newsweek's source. No, people are dead because angry Muslims rioted, not because of something printed in a free press in a democracy where, thankfully, that kind of reaction to a magazine article is frowned upon rather than encouraged."

The stupidity of this argument is too deep to explore, so I'll let it stand on its own. Needless to say we haven't heard that one repeated much.

Take Two: The Daily Kos posted this deep thought from Arthur Silber:

"Censorship is what they're after, and don't let them tell you otherwise. "

Censorship....on a story that's already been printed....that has already been questioned by the magazine that published it...I just, don't even know how to respond to that. Another dud.

Take Three: This morning the blogsphere seems to have settled on a final product: the old, reliable "Yea but....Bush Lied!" defense. This is the genius of the anti-war crowd. Since the Left takes as gospel truth that Bush lied about...everything ever, any lie or distortion from their side can be instantly excused (even if "People Died").

And just like that the news-cycle has passed us by. The spin has been set, the lines have been drawn, and no one has to think about 17 grieving families.

No War for Oil...Deal?

2005-05-16T08:16:00.000-07:00

The other day I stopped at the gas station to fill up, and as I handed over the $40 it costs to top off my tank, I found myself wondering, "What ever happened to our 'War for Oil'?" I was informed by numerous protesters that I'd be swimming in a sea of cheap gas by now, thanks to Bush's petroleum crusade. I don't remember buying a car with a 100 gallon tank since then, so what could account for the $40 fill up? I haven't heard any retractions from the activist community, so I must be missing something right?

Well, it turns out they were right after all God bless'm. Every major news outlet in the world is reporting today that high ranking officials in the Russian government, all the way up to Honest Vlad Putin, received bribes in the form of oil vouchers from one Saddam Hussein. This comes less than a week after French government officials were accused of the same. According to recently released reports, these officials received bribes in exchange for a pledge to use their positions on the U.N. Security Council to end sanctions against Iraq and veto any resolution to invade the country.

If only we hadn't dismissed those protesters just because they're unemployed, unkempt, and generally unhinged. They were trying to warn us the whole time that we couldn't trust France and Russia's intentions. No matter how much diplomacy we tried (sorry Sen. Kerry), these countries had already made a deal: No War for Oil.

The Secret Life of George Voinovich

2005-05-13T06:15:00.000-07:00

I would hate to be George Voinovich's secretary today. No doubt the phone's been ringing off the hook all afternoon, and those that couldn't get through made sure to blog their frustrations. Within 1 hour of announcing he couldn't support Bolton, he was labeled "spineless" and "lack[ing] the intelligence to understand what's going on". One blogger even suggested we "Daschle his ass".

As fun as it is to play "pile on the moderate", I decided to take a look at his record before jumping aboard. Preparing for a Jeffords Jr., I was surprised to find this:

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record
Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record.
Rated 15% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-labor voting record
Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record

Definite conservative credentials if ever there were, so what gives? Robert Novak, among others, have effectively demonstrated that opposition to Bolton's nomination is a matter of policy rather than "bad behavior", but why would Voinovich suddenly join the "Global Test" crowd?

Maybe he already was.

Despite his otherwise stellar voting record, I found a couple of troubling outliers. The first was a 2000 amendment called the "China Nonproliferation Act". The amendment would "provide for the application of certain measures to covered countries in response to the contribution to the design, production, development, or acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles", "covered countries" meaning China. Seems like a reasonable goal, yet Voinovich voted to kill it.

The second instance was an 2001 amendment to protect US military and government officials from any international court to which the US did not belong. The amendment passed the Senate, yet again Voinovich voted "No".

It should surprise no one to hear the names of those he voted with: Kennedy, Reid, Biden, Boxer...you get the picture. I could be jumping to conclusions, but this may be old George's Kryptonite. I can't reconcile these votes with his strong support of the Iraq war (plain old politics maybe?), but he votes like a member of the Cult of International Community. His "No Confidence" vote on Bolton is just further confirmation.

Starring Barack Obama as Faust

2005-05-12T08:48:00.000-07:00

About a month ago I related to you the sad story of Laura Hershey, a handicapped woman forced to endure her fellow liberals counting down with glee as Terri Schiavo starved to death. The article (still in the April archives) was part of a larger reflection on how liberals are able to overlook the sickening behavior of other liberals in order to support their own pet cause.

One would hope that those chosen few who have risen through the Democratic ranks would be immune from this phenomenon; apparently not. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, considered by many to be a legitimate presidential candidate, is now officially the #1 fund-raiser for Senator Robert Byrd. Aside from being completely senile, Sen. Byrd is best known for being a former member of the KKK, as well as filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act (oh sweet hypocrisy).

I'm sure plenty of people on the Left will spin this as a great man demonstrating an extraordinary act of forgiveness, but forgive me if I don't shed a tear. Seeing as how the entire deal was put together by Moveon.org (a group Obama will need to court if he has any ambitions for higher office), this sorry spectacle is politics, pure and simple. Apparently Sen. Obama doesn't see the irony in endorsing an outspoken racist in order to become the first black president.

Rob Reiner You Stupid Pile of Goo

2005-05-11T06:32:00.000-07:00

This is almost too good to be true. I knew Arianna Huffington's new blog was going to provide me with a wealth of fodder for my own site, but I didn't think it would pay off so soon. Enter today's entry from Rob Reiner.

In a post entitled "Where Have You Gone Woodward and Bernstein?", this human dirigible laments the lack of good journalism in America. After all, he claims,

"[T]here is no better proof than the fact that about 3 in every 4 people who supported President Bush believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and that we actually found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

He backs up this astonishing statement with this link. Seems like pretty damning evidence doesn't it? Only one problem; it's completly made up. Had he bothered to even read the article he cites, he would see that the actual percentage of Bush voters that believed Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 is 13%. Furthermore, the percentage of Kerry voters that believes the same is 7%. Damn Rob, that doesn't help your argument at all does it?

The second part of his "fact" is even better. Not only is there nothing in the report which states that "3 in every 4 people who supported President Bush" believe we actually found WMDs, THERE'S NO SURVEY OF THAT QUESTION AT ALL! The closest question is whether or not Saddam had WMDs right before the war, to which only 19% of Bush's supporters replied in the affirmative, along with 7% of Kerry's. Reiner completely made up this statistic; amazing!

The real beauty of it is this: these morons are used to being able to shoot off their mouths and say whatever they want without ever being called on it (so long as they stay off Fox News.) Now Miss Huffington has the brilliant idea of committing them to a medium where they actually have to back up what they say, and hilarity ensues. Expect a lot more "Huffington Post" related blogs; they're just too easy to pass up.

If It's Good Enough For Us, Then They Want Something Better

2005-05-10T07:34:00.000-07:00

Ask your average Johnny Q. Liberal what he thinks about Social Security Reform, and you'll get something along the lines of "There is no crisis! It's a risky scheme cooked up by Wall Street! Bush Lied!" Of course they have no idea what they're talking about, but someone has to be feeding them this nonsense.

Truth is it's actually a lot of someones, a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy if you will, so in the interest of brevity let's look at just one: the National Education Association. One would hope the NEA would be focusing its time and money on, oh I don't know, making sure kids could read, but sticking their noses in the SS debate apparently ranks higher.

First and foremost among the NEA's grievances is opposition to Personal Accounts (or Privatization, because it sounds more devious). The website declares:

"Privatization carries great risk and will jeopardize the secure retirement of many Americans."

and

"The push to privatize Social Security is a risky scheme for America, but a sure bet for the financial services industry. Financial firms stand to gain billions -- probably hundreds of billions of dollars -- in fees from private accounts."

I found this surprising for two reasons. First of all, how is it that the same people who are against having their pay based on how well they teach Math suddenly qualified financial analysts? Secondly, if personal savings accounts are so risky, and such a windfall for the financial services industry, then why does the NEA offer its own Member Savings Plan? That makes so little sense I can't even come up with a snide remark.

Even the NEA can't be comfortable with that much hypocrisy, so there must be something else driving their resistance. A little more digging reveals the answer: what they're really afraid of is a reform package that includes mandatory enrollment in the system. A lot of people don't know it, but teacher in 15 states don't pay into the system at all, instead they enjoy the generous pension plans that are currently bankrupting those states (California anyone?). These plans regulary raid the state coffers to hand out extra benefits to retiring teachers, and why not, taxpayers end up picking up the bill. The NEA admits as much on it's website:

"Mandatory coverage would weaken existing state and local retirement plans that often offer benefits superior to Social Security."

By it's own admission, the NEA doesn't think much of the current system, but they're fighting tooth and nail to make sure that you stay in it. Thanks guys, but I think I'll pass.

I guess He likes His ponies

2005-05-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

The experts were wrong again this weekend. From out of nowhere, a 50 to 1 longshot won the Kentucky Derby. The winning horse, Giacomo, was the second highest payoff in derby history. If you don't follow horseracing, then you probably don't care, but bear with me on this one.

The horse was named for Sting's son, which is all well and good, but Sting's last album wasn't really that good, so something else has to account for this upset. The answer comes from the small but dedicated compulsive gambling/devout catholic delegation. Whereas most Catholics simply scratched their heads when Cardinal Ratzinger took the name Benedict the XVI, this group correctly identified it as a message from the greatest handicapper of them all. A quick Google reveals it's significance; the last pope to take that name was Cardinal Chiesa, or as his friends called him, Giacomo della Chiesa.

Mysterious ways indeed.

Red Stains Are the Hardest to Get Out

2005-05-06T08:53:00.000-07:00

While Vladmir Putin steers his state ever closer to its communist roots, the American press is slowly beginning to acknowledge that the new monuments of Stalin being constructed throughout Russia probably aren't a good thing. The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial to this end so I won't embarrass myself by doing a poor retread, but there is another story buried in the international section that merits a closer look.

Too many American's would be surprised to learn that we have our own oil rich, communist dictator right in our own backyard. "President" Hugo Chavez (trust me the quotation marks are more than appropriate) has been slowly nationalizing his country for years now, taking farm land, oil production, and anything else of value from foreign investors and redistributing it among "the people". Meanwhile, the left has been busy writing love letters and printing up "Viva Chavez" caps to go with their Che Guevara tees.

While the response from our liberal friends isn't surprising, the speed at which this worker's paradise is collapsing is. Most experts figured that Chavez could keep up this charade as long as oil prices stayed high, and anyone who doesn't own a hybrid can attest to the fact that they are. Why then, is Venezuela unable to meet production quotas set by OPEC? While Chavez himself has admitted a shortfall of 120,000 a day, independent analysts put the number closer to 500,000.

While I'd like to be able to sit back and laugh at Chavez reaping what he's sown, there are two reasons to be concerned about this. The first is obvious: output falls, oil prices rise, gas prices soar, and I can't afford to drive to work. The second is much darker. Chavez has commissioned "Operation Black Gold" to investigate alleged "sabotage" that is keeping the country from meeting its quotas. While analysts blame the shortfalls on poor management and a lack of skilled workers, Chavez has sent out military goons to find those responsible for attacking his infrastructure. Would anyone be surprised if the guilty parties include some of his loudest critics? In a world where Joseph Stalin can still be held up as a hero, America must not let this dictator establish himself any more than he has. Venezuela is slowly being dyed red with blood, and history has shown us that it's the hardest stain to get out.

On the Educational Value of the Paris Hilton Tape

2005-05-05T17:20:00.000-07:00

Actually this post isn't nearly as exciting as the title promises. I just wanted to get your attention now so that you'll be prepared tomorrow morning when all the liberals start crowing about how the court's have exonerated Lynndie England.

What's actually happened is that the judge in the case threw out England's plea deal based on the testimony of her superior/lover Charles Graner. Graner really just repeated his own failed defense, namely that he was just following orders, but in doing so contradicted England's testimony that the now famous pictures were taken purely for amusement. Granger argues that the pictures were meant to be a training aid for other guards, and had the blessing of his superiors.

Despite what the Left would like to believe, this excuse it ludicrous. Even ignoring the fact that another court has already found this to be so much BS, there's another mostly ignored fact of the case that completely discredits him. It turns out there was more on the infamous roll of film than pictures of tortured prisoners, it also included a wide selection of amateur porn starring none other than Graner and England.

Now maybe I just suffer from a lack of imagination, but unless Graner was moonlighting as a Sex Ed instructor, I doubt his skill with the camera was put to any official use. Clearly this weirdo was keeping a personal collection, and didn't intend on sharing it with anyone but his most perverted friends.

Of course liberals can keep trying to argue otherwise, pointing to some grand conspiracy involving Bush, Rumsfeld and Area 51. If they do manage to pull off the conspiracy defense, I hope they give Miss Hilton a call. I'm sure she'll want to get in on that excuse.

Like Fish in a Barrel

2005-05-04T08:24:00.000-07:00

It's too easy, it really is, but someone has to make fun of the anti-nuke protesters that staged a rally in New York earlier this week, and let no one say Brash Limburg is above doing it. A lesser man might just post this picture of one of the organizers (he actually is by the way)

But I owe my readers a little more work then that, so I went beyond the group's coverboy to get the real story. By some quirk of Google, the first report I found was on ChinaNews.cn. I figuired the Chinese could report on it as well as anybody, until I noticed they credited the march to a group called "United for Peace and Justice and Abortion Now". I wouldn't put it past one of these groups to take that name, but that was a little too honest to be correct.

Abandoning my Google search, I moved on to old, reliable thenation.com. Sure enough, they had a nice article detailing what a great rally "United for Peace and Justice and Abolition Now" put on:

"That frustration toward the United States and its fellow nuclear powers (France included) was certainly on display during the march through Manhattan--in chants and songs as well as dances and theatrical performances. "

Chants? Songs? That sounds really fun! My next stop was the official website for the rally to find some chants that I could practice at home. The offical "Songs and Chant for Peace" page provided me with these gems:

"If Bush and Cheney start a war,
we won't vote for them no more!"

Well hmm. I hate to be a grammer Nazi, but that's a double negative. I'm not sure we want to yell about how we "will vote for him some more" in a crowd of people wearing "Bush=Hitler" t-shirts. Let's try another one:

"If Bush and Cheney attack Iraq,
we will take this country back."

Whoops, already tried this in November. Kinda loses its edge since we already blew it. How about:

"No Blood for Oil
Stop the War on Iraq!"

Oh come on! That one doesn't even rhyme. Frustrated with the lack of quality chants and not having the strength to tackle the entire Anti-War Christmas Carols section, I gave up.
To close I'll leave you with this profound thought from one of the speakers:

"As you know, the United for Peace and Justice marshals are responsible for maintaining law and order at this event ... since there are so many of you here, I believe it is quite dangerous. Therefore, I propose the following: We should find the eight largest and richest marshals and give each one of them a state-of-the-art machine gun... that way, if there are any troublemakers...they can quickly take care of them. Do you like my idea? Does it make you feel safer that a few marshals have the capability to kill us all in a few minutes?"

Well, if those troublemakers have machine guns too and are threatening to use them, then yes, yes it does.

The Curious Case of Abe Fortas

2005-05-03T09:39:00.000-07:00

In the short time I've been blogging, I've learned that there are a few absolutes in dealing with liberals. Today we'll examine one of my favorites: "If a liberal claims that someone is lying, they are not only telling the truth, but have hit upon something deeper that the libs desperately want to bury." Case in point, the abbreviated career of Justice Abe Fortas.

"Remember Abe Fortas!" has become the knee-jerk, liberal reaction to any claim that the current Democratic filibusters are unprecedented. Abe Fortas (not to be confused the irreplaceable Abe Vigoda) was a Supreme Court Justice nominated by Lyndon Johnson in 1965. So far, so good, no filibuster. In 1968 however, Johnson nominated Fortas to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice. Poor old Abe's nomination was filibustered by the Republicans and eventually withered on the vine. This is where liberals abruptly end the story and refuse to say anything else except "Bush Lied!"

While all of that is technically true, the devil is in the details, and since they seem to make our liberal friends so upset, lets take a closer look. First of all, while 24 Republicans were responsible for the filibuster, so were 13 Democrats. What were the other 10 Republican Senators doing? They were trying to bring the nomination to a vote. This was a bipartisan filibuster in the truest sense of the word, and bears no resemblance to the strictly partisan process occurring today (unless you count the turncoat Republicans, I'm looking at you Mr. Voinovich).

Second, it's informative to look at the reasons for the filibuster. As one would expect from a bipartisan filibuster, this had nothing to do with ideology. The issue before the Senate was a $15,000 speaking engagement Fortas had accepted while serving on the court. It was a major faux pas at the time, and the only reason for the filibuster.

So when Republicans say the current filibusters are "unprecedented", they are not lying, the Fortas filibuster has nothing in common with today's situation. That said, it's not the facts of this filibuster that Democrats want to bury most, it's the epilogue. Just one short year after being denied the role of Chief Justice, Abe Fortas was forced to resign from the court altogether. It seems the good judge had also accepted $20,000 from a financier who was under investigation for securities fraud (and later convicted). Contrary to liberal dogma, the congress does have a means to "defend democracy from the courts", and it's not the filibuster. When a judge's behavior is so appalling as to be a threat to democracy, the people (acting through congress) have the power to impeach him or her. It's an extreme move, and it's meant to be, in order to protect the judiciary from the political process while still keeping an emergency hatch to preserve democracy.

If the President's nominations were as terrible as the Democrats have charged, they could threaten them with impeachment and have them removed. Lacking serious charges and fueled only by naked partisanship, the Democrats have no choice but the unconstitutional measure of the judicial filibuster. The system works, as the case of Abe Fortas proves out, and the Democrats in the Senate are trying to circumvent it for political gain.

When Anger Fizzles into Apathy

2005-05-02T10:27:00.000-07:00

Sunday did me in. A couple hours watching Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press and I don't ever want to hear about Social Security or the Senate filibuster agan. What's the point? The Democrats refuse to have an adult conversation about either, instead choosing to stand in the corner with their arms crossed like a two year old having a temper tantrum. So be it. Here and here are the reasons Republicans are right on these issues, when you Dems are ready to sit at the big person table let me know and we can have a nice debate.

Much Ado About Nothing...Redux

2005-04-29T14:08:00.000-07:00

Last October, Charles Duelfer release his preliminary report on Iraq's WMDs. The report went into great detail about the threat Iraq could have posed, but it also stated that no WMDs had been found to date. Predictably, a great cry of "Bush Lied!" went up from every corner of the liberal world, and the people rejoiced in self-satisfaction.

On Tuesday, Duelfer released his final report, and unfortunately for anyone who's tired of hearing the aforementioned phrase, there are still no WMDs to report. So that should close the book on the matter right? Bush deceived the nation and the anti-war crowd has finally been exonerated right? Well, no, don't uncork that champagne just yet...

The term "WMD" can mean a lot of things, and in the case of Iraq it translated into chemical and biological weapons. Now unlike the image most people have of a top secret bunker with 1000 white-coated scientists building a super germ, most of the evidence presented on this matter (by Colin Powell no less) consisted of what amounted to a couple cookers in the back of converted 18 wheeler; not exactly high-tech. Nevertheless, those are all the ingredients necessary for making a really scary weapon.

So when we talk about having WMDS, what are we talking about? Raw materials are generally no problem, any medical supply company can sell all the chemicals and bugs you need. Ditto on the lab materials, hell you don't even have to spring for the white coats. So far any number of home scientists could be hauled off to jail, so what creates the distinction? At what point do you move beyond playing in a lab and into being a threat?

The answer is three things: the money to do it on a large scale, the people with knowledge to manufacture it in a practical matter, and the will to use the finished product. While Duelfer reports an absence of completed weapons, it does detail Saddam's success in stockpiling the first two requirements (see here and here and thank you U.N for the Oil-for-Food funding), and anyone who knows what happened to the Kurd's after Gulf War I has no doubts about the third.

Is this revisionist history? I don't think so. What Bush and the administration were selling was a threat, a threat which certainly existed. What it became was an acid-test justification for the war, where nothing but a stockpile of completed weapons would suffice. Politically this was a mistake, but it doesn't change the facts. For all intents and purposes Saddam had WMDs. When he decided to push the button, no missiles would have rocketed off immediately, but scientists with the know how and resources would have begun feverishly working and "quite quickly" according to the Duelfer report, we would have had all the proof we never wanted.

There's Got to Be a Morning After

2005-04-29T08:20:00.000-07:00

Maybe someone put something in my drink last night, because I felt pretty good about Bush's press conference. I thought the president outlined a reasonable plan for reform (detailed here for those who missed it), but I must have been watching "The Simple Life" by accident because all I see in this morning's headlines is "BUSH PROPOSES BENEFITS CUTS!". Well, no, that's not what he proposed at all, but the truth never got in the way of a good headline.

I've come to expect this sort of thing from the mainstream media, along with various complaints and confusion from the pundits on the right. The liberals have responded with the usual shotgun blast critique: personal accounts are a privatization scheme, "means testing" hurts the middle class, there is no crisis, and of course, Bush lied.

It's all nonsense of course, and as I find articles explaining it better than I canI'll link to them. For the moment I'd like to point out an opportunity to expose one of Big Lies of the Democratic platform. Throughout last year's presidential campaign and continuing into the debate over Social Security reform, the Democrat's goto answer for all of life's ills is: Tax the Rich! A surefire way to win votes, but that's because people tend to consider the guy next door "rich", while they remain safely pegged at "upper-middle class".

Bush's proposal has the potential to tear down this illusion. Democrat's are already calling "means testing" an attack on the middle class. I find this strange since this is exactly the same group the Dems propose raising taxes for: people making over $100k a year. Like John Q. Public, Dems like to have a sliding scale for the term "rich" depending on what benefits them. If Republican leadership stages this debate correctly, they can lock that scale permanently.

Special Late Night Edition

2005-04-28T18:17:00.000-07:00

It could wait until morning, but after the President's press conference I wanted to do a brain dump before it was all gone. So first Bush comes out with gas prices. Eh, who cares; you'll know this has become a real issue when minimum wage workers stop buying pickup trucks and V6 sports cars, until then don't worry about it.

Thankfully, topic B was Social Security, a topic that we should actually care about. The big news was a plan for dealing with the solvency issue. The president proposed a means test for future benefits; in layman's terms, the more you earn in the private sector, the less you get from the public.

OK yes, it is income redistribution, and yes, it's unfair, but let's look at the alternatives. We could raise taxes on the rich, that's a popular one with the Dems. Or we could cut benefits across the board, as if the Dems didn't have enough ammunition already to defeat reform. Bush's proposal simply makes the best of a crappy situation.

Despite that I'm still not 100% sold on the idea, but the fact that personal accounts have been "nailed to the table", I'm willing to go along. Given time, personal accounts will transform this system, and down the road we won't have to talk about cutting benefits or raising taxes.

The press is going to be all over this tomorrow, and intend to sift through it and bring you the good, the bad, and the ugly. Stay Tuned...

BrashLimburg.com Is Live!

2005-04-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

The title says it all. www.brashlimburg.com is now the offical domain name of The Limburg Letter. Start using it today, and be sure to tell your friends.

The Calm Before the Storm

2005-04-28T10:08:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else get that feeling? It's like despite all the rhetoric going back and forth these last two weeks, Washington is taking one long collective breath before it dives into battle. Bolton's hearing has been postponed, Frist still hasn't pulled the trigger on the "nuclear option", and Social Security Reform seems to be lost in limbo. The President has called a press conference tonight to talk about these issues, and it may be the storm's fist crack of lightning.

We might even start to feel a few drops in the next few weeks, but I don't think the storm clouds will really break until this hits the Senate. A Federal bill restricting abortion has all the ingredients for starting a war. For one, the Dem's in the Senate will be fighting tooth and nail to kill this thing. Any Senator who depends on NARAL for funding can't afford to let this one through without a fight. Should the bill pass, it also brings a new sense of urgency to the fight over judicial nominations, because there's a good chance that the inevitable lawsuit will be hitting the Supreme Court just as a replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist is being nominated. Finally, this bill deals with an issue that Americans are passionate about, and while Joe Citizen probably won't remember what the "nuclear option" even is come 2006, he will be ready to condemn or reward his Senator's vote on this.

So we'll see. Maybe I'm wrong, but the blogs and editorial pages have reached a fever pitch. The winds kicking up and there's a sound in the distance that could be thunder... or maybe the percussion of an oncoming army. Nothing to do but fasten your seat belts and wait to see who draws first blood.

Fun With Liberal Mad Libs

2005-04-27T10:14:00.000-07:00

Today Drudge is reporting that the Secret Service is investigating Air America's "Randi Rhodes Show" because of the following skit, which was played during the opening of the show:

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

You might remember Randi Rhodes from the HBO documentary on Air America entitled "Left of the Dial". She was the chain-smoking woman in the leopard-print housecoat who kept mumbling "I'm so fucking lost"; definitely the person you want to turn to for political advice.

Apparently Randi (and one would imagine her audience) thought this skit was pretty hilarious, so I thought it would be fun to do a little Liberal Mad Libs. We'll swap out a couple of words and see what kind of wacky results we get. For example:

The announcer: "A group of captured terrorists are telling us our detainment camp isn't safe anymore, so they are going to make us fix it. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelps: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastards. [audio of gun being cocked].

HO HO HO, That's a real belly-buster! Let's do it again!"

The announcer: "A group of sissies is telling us our institution of marriage isn't relevant anymore, so they are going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelps: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastards. [audio of gun being cocked]."

Now, while we're being fitted with handcuffs but before we're charged with hate crimes, let's all contemplate the gold standard of hypocrisy the libs have achieved on this one.

Good Intentions, Bad Thinking

2005-04-26T09:27:00.000-07:00

I think that title pretty well sums up the state of the average American liberal. I don't mean the raving lunatics (see a couple posts ago), but the neighbor next door who still has a Kerry/Edwards sign out in their yard. Case in point, my new liberal friend over at http://liberalrapture.blogspot.com.

"sock monkey" (SM from here on out) took the time to respond in great detail to a post I made on his(her?) website, so of course I'm going to return the favor. I suggest reading her post first, but if that sort of thing makes you cringe it's not necessary, I'll give you the gist of it.

My original post asked SM to explain why they stated that Republicans push their will on America while Democrats stand up for the will of the people. I found this odd considering the fact that most of the liberal victories we hear about these days are achieved through the courts, undoubtedly the least democratic institution of the government.

"SM" first brings up gay marriage, and asserts that the left has already won that argument and it will only be a matter of time before it is accepted throughout the country. On the face of it the court decisions in San Francisco and Massachusetts, and the civil union legislation passed in Connecticut last week probably seem like a growing wave. Unfortunately it ignores the anti-gay marriage referendums passed in 11(or so) states in the 2004 elections. Furthermore, of the three examples I cited, only one was could be interpreted as representing the will of the people.

"SM" has an answer for this however, comparing these cases to the courts ending segregation (Brown vs. Board of Education). "SM" advocates using the courts with the same good intentions, but once you think it through you realize that the courts were also responsible for making segregation the law of the land to begin with (Plessy vs. Ferguson), and before that, for upholding slavery (Dred Scott case). The lesson is that the courts are not infallible, and in politically charged cases their decisions can have more to do with personal politics than the rule of law. Even those on the far left are starting to realize that litigating through the courts can only take you so far, but ultimate acceptance of any movement must come from the people.

Inevitably, "SM" also brings up the war as an example of "forcing an agenda", along with reforming social security and insisting on judges being "people of faith". If you're a good liberal, you fight those causes with the best of intentions, but slow down and think for a second. Like them or hate them, they are all included in the constitutional privileges of the president. Although you may not accept it, the people voted for him, and he's carrying out the wishes of his constituency. If John Kerry had won you'd be cheering him on for "forcing" your agenda on all the poor Republicans, and you'd probably think it was a pretty good idea.

What's interesting is that "SM" also mocks Bush for not proposing a constitutional amendment banning abortion because he knows it will be defeated. Liberals expect conservatives to suggest such an "outrageous" amendment despite their good intentions, but a thinking conservative knows that A.) the amendment would probably be defeated, democratically and B.) the issue of abortion was always up to the states, not the federal government, until the Supreme Court made it the law of the land, undemocratically. I think we've established a pattern here...

There's also some stuff in there about the corrupt right-wing media, but I'll just direct you to read "Weapons of Mass Distortion" by L. Brent Bozell, which rebuts that nonsense all day.

I hope sock monkey reads this post and responds, because I think its a debate that every American on opposite sides of the aisle should be having. I'll be posting a link to his/her blog so you can follow the debate, and I hope "SM" will do the same.

On Stupid Senators and the Power of Catch Phrases

2005-04-25T08:06:00.000-07:00

It's only 9:30 am on Monday and already I'm sufficiently agitated enough to post. Two things bugging me on this sunny Monday morning. The first is something Sen. Chris Dodd said this weekend concerning the Bolton nomination:

"I think he's going to embarrass the president. I think he's going to ... have a very difficult job serving if he's confirmed narrowly by the Senate. He should withdraw or the president ought to withdraw this nomination."

Apparently the Dems got so much traction from the assertion that Bush couldn't lead since he didn't have a mandate that the're going to try and apply it to Bush's appointees. Excuse me Mr. Dodd, but last time I checked neither public opinion nor your opinion had anything to do with how the Ambassador to the U.N. carried out his or her job. In fact, I feel pretty comfortable saying that 95% of the country doesn't know who the last U.N. Ambassador was. Not a profound thought, but I'm getting real sick of moron senators running off their mouths on the Sunday shows.

And speaking of confirmations, how did Republican's allow the term "nuclear option" to become the preferred nomenclature for doing away with filibusters on judicial nominees? Even worse, who's the genius who came up with the counter-term "constitutional option"? Real catchy guys, that ought to convince America.

Since we seem incapable of coming up with good labels of our own, I think we should start co-opting terms from the Dems and using them in other issues. For example, I propose we start referring to abortion as the "nuclear option". Just think:

"Mom, Dad, I'm pregnant, and I've decided to go with the nuclear option"

"I don't know honey, I support your right to choose, but the nuclear option? I don't like the sound of that, seems a little bit extreme to me."

"Yea, I guess your right, I think I'll just stick with the status quo here. No sense rocking the boat."

We Have Seen the Enemy...

2005-04-22T08:16:00.000-07:00

...and he is a moron. Then again, maybe I am too for ever thinking I could venture into depths of liberal thinking and come out unscathed. It was with the best intention that I started the slow work of converting our liberal brethren over at AmericaBlog, but I clearly underestimated what I was up against.

To spare you the fate of going over there yourself, allow me to share some of what passes for higher liberal thought these days. The post below comes from a topic on an anti-discrimination bill for homosexuals that was narrowly defeated in Washington state. Since this is clearly a sign of an impending holocaust, the community was up in arms. I posted the note below in an attempt to bring some perspective:

"All I'm hearing is doom, gloom, and (surprise, surprise) comparisons to Nazi Germany. What I'm not hearing is what this bill involved and how it being defeated equates to putting all gays into concentration camps? Can anyone enlighten me?"

I didn't have wait long for a thoughtful reply:

"The Nazis didn't go after the Jews immediately. They moved in on them incrementally. They can't go after us right now, but they can create the hateful atmosphere of scapegoating and fear that in another 10 years, if they do it right, they can. And they seem very adept at it. I think they're getting help from the Zionist Jews in its cleverness in return for their continued support of Israel's Zionist policies."

As insightful as that is, the last part is the best:

"And no, I'm not anti-semetic so fuck off."

Oh, well hell, I'm glad we cleared that up, someone might have gotten the wrong idea!

In the spirit of fairness, a fellow lib did set them straight:

"The comment (a few pages up) by "incognito" about "zionist jews" is repulsive. And yes, anti-semitic (which he couldn't even spell correctly). The Christian Right has peculiar and short term interest in supporting Israel (they believe it has to exist, and then be destroyed, before the rapture). But listen, bigot: Israel has better protections for gay rights than the US does. Tel Aviv is far more progressive on gay issues than Washington State, Oregon or many other "blue states". And most Jewish Americans are solidly liberal and pro gay. You're no better than the angry working class whites who are beating the shit out of gay people: you're mad, and you're beating up the Jews. Hardly a new story."

Did you get that? Its not the progressive Jews who are to blame, it's those gay-bashing christian conservatives doing it so they can bring about the rapture. Thank God cooler heads prevailed, and as an aside, do you get the impression that liberals buy more of those "Left Behind" books than Republicans? They seem to know and awful lot about them...

So what's the moral of the story? Besides the fact that conversion isn't a one day affair, the lesson is that although its moderated by the time it hits the national stage, a lot of this grassroots activism is based in anger and hate. Is it any surprise that while a Democratic leader may make a long, principled speech about the dangers of globalization, over in Seattle people are breaking windows and attacking police officers in order to fight the scourge of the WTO? When Moveon.org and the DailyKos are able to make Howard Dean the head of the DNC, be very afraid of the people who are pulling his strings.

The True Reason for the Fight Against Bolton

2005-04-21T13:52:00.000-07:00

Like most conservatives, I'm furious about what's going in the confirmation hearing for John Bolton, and like most conservatives I believe it's because Bolton has the guts to speak honestly about the UN, with the extra bonus of giving Bush a black eye. Now I fear however, that what's really going on is much, much darker: a full manifestation of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

How did I crack this web of lies you ask? I simply asked myself this question: "Who stands to lose the most if Bolton is confirmed?" Is it Kofi Annan? No, he's not going anywhere. If the biggest institutional scandal in the history of the world can take place under you nose and you don't get fired, you're effectively fireproof. Perhaps Joe Biden? He will lose a considerable amount of face if despite throwing all his weight against Bolton the confirmation still goes through, but the media tells us that Biden is just an honest, moderate politician with real concerns about our country, so if anything he'll be able to play the role of a martyr and win in the end regardless. No, the one with the most to lose, the one who the Democrats will protect at any cost is, of course, Sean Penn.

That's right, Sean Penn, star of the new thriller "The Interpreter", a roller coaster ride of murder and intrigue that takes place....you guessed it, in the U.N. I'd go into more detail, but all that's really been reported about this movie is that it is the first film allowed to film IN THE ACTUAL U.N. BUILDING! Now that you've picked yourself up off the floor after that stunning announcement, let's examine what that means.

This is a movie who's sole appeal seems to be that it takes place in, and involves the activity of, the U.N. People probably lined up "Star Wars" style the moment they heard that, but wait, what's this? John Bolton says the U.N. is useless, and that if ten floors disappeared overnight, no one would care. All good liberals know that Bolton is wrong, not to mention blasphemous, but what about the movie-going public? On the chance that they aren't as enlightened as the Democratic party, they may lose interest in this cinema event!

Not to worry though, Joe Biden and friends are making sure that the world knows that Bolton is just a mean, grouchy, know-nothing. They've done everything they can to tear him down personally, inviting every kook with a chip on their shoulder to testify. If there was any doubt in America's mind about Bolton or the true glory of the U.N.. it has almost been extinguished.

The fate of Sean Penn, "The Interpreter", and the next Ambassador to the U.N. now appears to be in the hands of Sen. George Voinovich, and, unfortunately, the rumor on the Hill is that he's a big Spicolli fan...

On The Torment of Being a Modern Liberal

2005-04-20T17:33:00.000-07:00

"Politics make for strange bedfellows"

It's an old cliche to be sure, but its never been truer than for the modern liberal. Only at a liberal rally will you find grown women demanding the right to kill unborn children and handicapped adults, arm in arm with adult men wearing "Trees have feelings too" t-shirts. Aside from mastering the art of irony, the democratic party's greatest achievement of the last 30 years has been to somehow convince these people they're all on the same team.

Special interest groups are in and of themselves nothing new, nor is the idea that there is strength in numbers. In fact I wouldn't be bothering to point this out at all if I hadn't read this article. It relates the sorry story of Laura Hershey, a physically handicapped woman and self-identified "secular thinker" and "lesbian feminist". When I first found this article I thought thenation.com might have been hacked by a Freeper. Here was a profoundly disabled woman articulating her belief in the sanctity of life and the evil in what was done to Terri Schiavo. I was just about send an e-mail to the editor letting them know there must be some mistake, when I finally hit the but-monkey (to borrow from Ms. Ingraham).

Despite the fact that Republicans were fighting for this woman's life while Democrat's like Ted Kennedy all but superglued her mouth shut, Ms. Hershey (Ms. until those bigots legalize gay marriage!) stands by her man. After all, Republicans "jeopardized many other disabled lives by attempting to gut Medicaid", and what is that if not holding a knife to a child's throat? If only they had the heart of Democrats, who simply "have trouble embracing the rights of people with severe disabilities", but will surely understand once they realize Terri Schiavo was not being murdered, but discriminated against...

Again, I'm not making points that haven't been brought up by people much smarter and clever than me, but I think I've hit upon something interesting here. This is a woman who in a sane world would be a hard line conservative, one of the "enemies" as she puts it, yet despite the fact that most of her progressive friends try to euthanize her every time she dozes off, she remains a Nation-level Democrat. People like Ms. Hershey represent a strange new breed, special interest groups who have abandoned their special interest in the name of a higher cause. I think this explains the power of MoveOn.org, they've finally created a Democratic party that is more than the sum of its parts.

It might be a bad sign for our side, it might only signal the Armageddon, but for the moment it only makes me profoundly sad. I pray for the young girl who decide to go through with an abortion in order to support gay marriage, I pray for the man who disconnects his wife from life support to save a baby seal, and, of course, I pray for Ms Hershey.

Please Stow Your Weapons in Your Pockets...

2005-04-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

prior to boarding the plane, otherwise those federal screeners might be forced to take them away. In news that would be obvious to anyone who doesn't still have a Kerry/Edwards '04 bumper sticker on their car, the GAO has released a study which finds that private airline security screeners are more effecteive than those that are government employed.

Read the story for details, but it all boils down to the simple truth that the private sector is better at most things than the government. Now granted the difference is small, but it is a.) statistically signifigant, and b.) only involves 5 airports in the country (meaning little competition, meaning marginal improvement). Hopefully a Republican with even the smallest bit of guts will take this and push for further privatization, but after this Bolton hearing I'm not feeling optimistic.

As an extra bonus:

In a separate report issued Tuesday, the inspector general for the Homeland Security Department faulted the Transportation Security Administration for allowing lavish spending on a $19 million crisis management center, including about $500,000 to acquire artwork, silk plants and other decorative and miscellaneous items.

Because, you know, can't have any extra money lying around that they might use to hire another private company...

That Whooshing Sound You Hear...

2005-04-19T00:34:00.000-07:00

is not Catholics leaving the church, but air escaping from the tires of the "let's liberalize the church" bandwagon.

We have a new pope, Benedict XVI. I leave it to others to analyze what this means for the church, but what it means to liberals in America and Western Europe is clear: You Lost. A week's worth of discussion equating the Catholic tradition of an all-male Conclave to the Islamic practice of "honor killing" female family members who dare to speak to a member of the opposite sex should be enough to convince anyone that these people just don't get it.

The moderates over at americablog are predictably upset, wondering where they can hide from the impending homosexual Inquisition. After all " Ratzinger was the main instrument for killing free speech in the church", and we all know how important free speech is to religion (so long as its not condemning those honor killings).

For me it's all echoes of the "living constitution". There are no universal truths and nothing is sacred. Both the law of the land and the tenants of faith should adapt to however the wind is blowing, and who screams the loudest. Unfortunately for these folks, the latter are more firmly rooted than the latter, and, for now, the Pope remains the rock upon which the church is built.

My New Arch-Nemesis

2005-04-18T20:13:00.000-07:00

In my short time on this website it's become apparent that most of my neighbors either don't speak English, or are using this service to document their stalking of their boyfriend of 3 years ago. Somehow among this sludge I managed to find a diamond, http://americablog.blogspot.com!. And to think I was worried about not having anything to write about.

Because I'm lazy, I plan on stealing topics from this site as much as possible. Its got all the essentials, photoshop banner at the top that looks worse than the normal template, requests for donations, ads for crappy websites selling Che T-shirts and Bush is a Nazi bumper stickers (and not a trace of irony!), and most importantly, a bunch of whiney liberal losers with nothing better to do then comment on the articles on some dudes blog.

Tell you what though, these dudes have alot of time on thier hands, and they know how to post pictures, so they're way up on me. The tide will turn slowly however, verrrrry slowly...

Welcome to The Limburg Letter

2005-04-18T14:22:00.000-07:00

So what are we doing here?

I like to think it's a we but the odds that I'm not talking to myself are about 1,000,000:1, and if anyone is reading this I'll assume I'm being stalked.

On the oft chance that you are here, welcome to The Limburg Letter, the only place on the net to get the cutting analysis and biting wit of me, Brash Limburg. I plan to cover alot on this website, mostly things that piss me off but once and a while something constructive. We'll have to see where it goes, good chance this will be the last post ever, but you never know so stay tuned.