July 29, 2007

So Much for Freedom of Expression

Filed under: Interesting News,Politics,Republicans,Trials/Lawsuits — acepundit @ 4:16 pm

No, this man wasn’t arrested in some totalitarian country for throwing a Quran down a toilet, he was charged right here in the USA under bogus hate-crime legislation:

(AP) NEW YORK A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

The Islamic holy book was found in a toilet at Pace’s lower Manhattan campus by a teacher on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book in a toilet on Nov. 21, police said.

Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.

Treatment of the Quran is a sensitive issue for Muslims, who view the book as a sacred object and mistreating it as an offense against God. The religion teaches that the Quran is the direct word of God.

So now hate crimes encompass religious intolerance. Well, religious intolerance against Muslims anyway. Mark Steyn makes the excellent observation over at The Corner that the defendant should have just claimed what he was doing was “art.” After all, it worked for the artist who received grant money to fund his award-winning exhibit featuring Jesus submerged in a glass of his own urine.

There’s a lot of religious intolerance in this country. It’s your right to distain religion. As I noted above, Christianity-bashing is such a blood sport that we aren’t surprised by examples of hatred toward it. But if you can now be charged with a hate-crime for simply throwing a book down a toilet, I will support any action taken by an offended Christian who sees his religion being degraded. Of course, I’d rather just see an end to hate-crime legislation.


July 28, 2007

Fool Me Thrice

Filed under: Congress,Democrats,Elections,Republicans,Supreme Court — acepundit @ 12:58 pm

Senator Chuck Schumer, the high-ranking Democrat who sits on the judiciary committee, cannot believe how easily President Bush was able to fool him not once but twice with his two stellar picks for the Supreme Court: John Roberts and Sam Alito, and vows not to be fooled a third time.

Speaking to the American Constitution Society, Schumer all but promised that President Bush is done picking Supreme Court justices, telling the group he and his colleagues were “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito.”

Says Schumer, “I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.”

Like when there’s a retirement? I don’t think the American public would pleased with a Senate that refused to act if presented with a vacancy more than a year before the next election.

ABC correspondent Jan Crawford certainly put it mildly when she wrote, “some of the liberal commentary on the Court since the justices packed up and left town has been almost breathtaking in its over-the-top hysteria.”

It also doesn’t help when the media is consistently wrong in its analysis of the last Supreme Court term. Just yesterday on his blog at the Washington Post, Paul Kane wrote about Schumer’s childish plan to give Bush the silent treatment should another retirement take place with erroneous information on what the Roberts court has done, saying, “The Roberts court overturned previous rulings on partial birth abortion and campaign finance reform.”

An all too familiar pattern. Certainly the Left has little to cheer about in regards to the recent Supreme Court decisions that didn’t turn out their way, but their predictable “sky is falling” rhetoric goes beyond the pale. Contrary to what you’re being told by the media and even respectable law professors, the Supreme Court did not reverse a bunch of precedents and send the country back 200 years.

The Court did not overturn any previous rulings on partial-birth abortion. Everyone swears it did but the Nebraska state law that banned the nasty procedure was scratched by the Supreme Court in 2000 and is still dead.

This year the Court simply upheld a federal law passed by Congress – you know, the branch that’s popularly elected by the people to write laws – outlawing partial-birth abortion in 2003. And it wasn’t exactly an ideological piece of legislation. The House passed it by a vote of 281-142 and the Senate by a comfortable margin of 64-34.

When it reached the Supreme Court on appeal, the nine justices had to decide whether to invalidate or uphold a fairly new and popular law supported by 345 members of Congress plus the president, to 176 members who opposed it.

For all the screaming liberals do about respecting precedent and not enacting it’s own ideological agenda, they come off mighty contradictory for assaulting the Court for upholding a four-year-old congressional law.

Campaign Finance is also alive, albeit weakened, but when the Supreme Court found it a violation of the Constitution to prohibit an advocacy group from running a televised campaign ad less than 60 days before an election, liberals went nuts.

It was a blow to students’ free speech rights, liberals argued, when the Supreme Court sided against a high school student who refused to take down a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at a school-sponsored event because the principal thought it violated the school’s policy against advocating drug use.

It would have been interesting, had the Court recognized such free speech rights that trample school policy, to see what else students could get away with. At least now we know a student who shows up at school with a swastika on his t-shirt probably wouldn’t get the support of the Supreme Court.

So Chucky has spoken. Will we witness the greatest showdown ever to take place in the Senate? It’s a fight in which at least one senator from New York is willing to participate.

July 27, 2007

YouTube Circus Awaits GOP

Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Republicans — acepundit @ 6:14 pm

The Democrats already did it and now the GOP will have its chance to field “questions” from YouTube submitters that would likely embarrass any serious journalist. Opinion is split in Republican circles as to whether they should agree to it. Michelle Malkin thinks it would be a great opportunity for a Republican to call out any bias CNN/YouTube tries to practice, but it looks like the front runners are hesitant to appear.

And if you’re Rudy Giuliani or the top poller in either party it would be in your best interest to avoid as many debates as possible until securing the party nomination. You can’t win in these kinds of debates, only lose, and allow the next challenger to pass you by catastrophically imploding on stage.

If the Republicans do agree to appear on YouTube I probably won’t watch it as I didn’t watch any of the previous debates. To me they’re about as authentic as John Edwards’ hair.

July 24, 2007

Your Government Knows What’s Best

Filed under: Interesting News — acepundit @ 4:57 pm

And how to keep you healthy when you’re bar-hopping:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed legislation Monday making Illinois the latest state to ban smoking in public places — including bars, restaurants and work places. The law goes into effect Jan. 1.

Smokers will still be allowed to light up in their homes, cars, at retail tobacco shops, in certain motel rooms and outdoors. If they get caught smoking in a public place off limits under the new law, though, they could be fined up to $250, and the business could get a $2,500 fine.

“This law will save lives,” said Blagojevich, who signed the measure at Chicago’s Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Supporters have highlighted the health dangers of tobacco and second-hand smoke in pushing for the ban.

Bar owners and smokers weren’t so pleased.

Now on to banning alcohol and the fattening .39 cent Happy Hour wing special to complete the life-saving trifecta. Residents of Illinois should feel so lucky for having such a caring statewide babysitter.

July 20, 2007

Is that the Imperial March I Hear?

Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Politics,Republicans,War — acepundit @ 6:06 pm

Jamie reports on the inaugural ceremony:

US President George W. Bush will undergo a “routine colonoscopy” at the Camp David retreat on Saturday, temporarily ceding his powers to Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House said Friday. Cheney raised his hand and promised not to wipe out Muslims and promote Halliburton employees as a new Middle Eastern race of people.

Meanwhile readers of The Corner are breaking out the champagne:

Readers are really into Cheney being president for awhile. Suggestions for Acting President Cheney include

Bomb Iran.
Commute the sentences of those border agents.
Fire Mike Chertoff.
Tell Harry Reid to … well, you know…
Pardon Scooter.

I wouldn’t mind seeing two and four being done tomorrow, but with pressure now even coming from the Democrats to have Compean and Ramos freed (an easy campaign issue winner), it’s going to happen before Bush leaves office – whether it be before or after his colonoscopy.

July 19, 2007

An Inconvenient Link

Filed under: Capital Punishment,Child Exploitation,Politics,Trials/Lawsuits — acepundit @ 4:44 pm

It isn’t published yet, but when this supposedly controversial study makes it rounds I doubt we’ll see any much needed changes to the status quo:

Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.

The study, which has not yet been published, is stirring a vehement debate among psychologists, law enforcement officers and prison officials, who cannot agree on how the findings should be presented or interpreted.

This yet-to-be-published study surprises me as much as the discovery of the extensive criminal history of the rapist who just gave us another pretty white girl to bury.

Studies have widely found a link between pornography and violent criminals, so it’s only natural to see a link between child abusers and child pornography. Of course, not all subscribers and purveys of pornography are criminals, but unlike collectors of child rags they don’t have to suppress their sexual urges to be on the good side of the law.

It is simply not a baffling discovery when one who has been released on charges of possessing child pornography is found to be in the inappropriate company of children. The 85% statistic means that the other 15 weren’t bold enough to act on their desires.

Unfortunately, hard prison (the one rational solution) takes a backseat to theory of rehabilitation adopted by criminologists and “health experts” who try to do the humane thing by recycling society’s most depraved back into the community thinking they’ve made them more productive.

But then a body turns up and we have just gone from discussing what to do with middle-level sex offenders to debating capital punishment and how we could have “seen it coming.”

So we ask: How many offenders in that 85% category have been convicted of a felony or sex crime before molesting a child – before getting busted for viewing child pornography? Then we realize that a two-month sentence for inappropriate contact with a minor is too short and by getting tougher we can prevent someone from molesting a child who only then gets caught for the lesser offense of viewing child porn – because they’ll be behind bars.

It really is that easy.

July 18, 2007

Three Cheers for Senator Feinstein

Filed under: Congress,Democrats,Politics,Republicans,Trials/Lawsuits — acepundit @ 10:53 pm

That’s right. I’m showing love for Senator Dianne Feinstein. It’s the first and probably last time for the Democratic senator but she should be commended for trying to free Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. In the wake of Scooter Libby’s commuted sentence, President Bush really has no choice in the matter:

WASHINGTON — Sens. John Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein on Wednesday joined the ranks of lawmakers urging President Bush to release two Border Patrol agents sentenced to more than a decade in prison each for wounding a Mexican drug courier.

A group of Republican House members also has called on Bush to commute the sentences or pardon Compean and Ramos, echoing the demands of predominantly conservative grassroots advocacy organizations that are rallying behind the two agents. Pressure for the agents’ release escalated after Bush commuted the sentence of convicted former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison respectively after they were convicted on more than a half-dozen charges in the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on Feb. 17, 2005. Aldrete-Davila was shot in the buttocks as he fled from the agents after abandoning a van loaded with marijuana. He escaped across the border but later re-emerged as the key witness against the two agents.

Feinstein and Cornyn challenged the prosecutor’s decision to include a firearms charge that mandated a 10-year minimum sentence. The firearms offense was unnecessary, the senators said in their letter to Bush, since prosecutors lodged 12 charges against the agents, some of which were dropped by the jury.

It is without question that the two agents screwed up by failing to report the shooting, but that’s not why they’re doing more time in prison than most child sex offenders. The prosecutor nailed them on gun crimes that carry mandatory sentences.

Border Patrol agents are required to carry firearms due to the nature of their jobs. In this case the two agents used them when they thought it was necessary because they thought the drug runner had a weapon of his own. They may be guilty of violating policy, but they certainly shouldn’t be put on par with felons who wantonly use firearms to commit violent crimes, and that’s exactly what the prosecutor has done.

What Women Don’t Know About Men

Filed under: Interesting News — acepundit @ 3:00 pm

An interesting list of items that if women understood would make relationships a whole lot easier to handle – from a bigger list:

1. Getting angry at us for not reading your mind is like getting angry at yourself for not being able to fly. It’s not just futile, it’s physically impossible.
2. Yes, we do think Jessica Alba is hot. Sometimes we’re even dumb enough to admit it.
3. You do look good without makeup, just not as good as you look with it.
4. Ever notice how we don’t fight with our male friends? That’s why we get so frustrated when we fight with you.
5. You care what you’re wearing infinitely more than we do. In fact, if you’re naked when you open the front door, you won’t hear an argument from us.
6. You don’t like to get hit on in public, you don’t want to date online and you don’t want to be set up on blind dates. Tell us if sending messenger pigeons is an appropriate way of courting. Because if it is, we’re all over it.
7.There should a statute of limitations on stupid things that we said that can come back to haunt us. I propose 24 hours.
8. We actually like your girly pet-names for us, but please, not in front of the guys!
9. Just because we like looking at the women in Maxim doesn’t mean we want to actually converse with the women in Maxim. Not for long, anyway.

1. Women do know this but use it as a weapon anyway, not because they expect us to be able to read their minds but because they expect us to put more effort into figuring out what they want. There are fewer things women hate more than spelling it out for us. If you’re out in public with her and she’s visibly unhappy you’d better suggest an alternative plan before she has to tell you she’s miserable. She has too much pride to sink that low.

2. The jealousy factor is programmed into all women before birth. Men know this and like to invoke its humor. Ladies, if you ask us if we think Jessica Alba is hot we’re going to say yes even though we know it will bother you. That’s what you get for asking a silly question. We could care less if you told us you were attracted to Brad Pitt, Michael Moore or Saved By the Bell’s Screech Powers. We know you are.

3. There’s a line to be drawn somewhere. True, women shouldn’t be obligated to paint themselves up just to win some male affection, but the absolutist feminist position that says women don’t have to shave their armpits and legs or spend a little time on their looks to satisfy society’s definition of “a beautiful woman” is the reason why so many of them are alone and single.

4. Contrary to popular belief men are in fact the pacifists, not women. We don’t like conflict which is why we don’t let the littlest things work us over for extended periods of time. Sure, if it comes down to it we’ll drop the atom bomb for a quick resolution but we’d much rather have a beer with our former enemies than hold a grudge. Similarly with you, we don’t care as much about whatever is ticking you off because, again, we don’t like to fight. It’s not that we don’t care about you or your feelings. We just aren’t bothered by the issue as much. Before calling us insensitive at least consider the possibility that we may be the rational ones on this.

5. Men in relationships don’t care, save for the metros, about how they look. But single guys will obsess over their appearance. We claim not to fall for commercial advertising, that’s what women do. But if we see a commercial telling us we’ll look sexier in this pair of jeans or saturated in the “deodorant of the month” spray we’ll be the first to shell out our money to compete with the other lions. The Tag and Axe marketers are geniuses.

6. Men will do absolutely anything if a woman will fall for it. We’ll go into any chat room and brazenly ask if any “sexy ladies wanna’ pm with a buff 20 m NY.” And we absolutely love getting hit on in public. Women like classy compliments, not cheesy pickup lines. No rules for us when it comes to compliments no matter how tactless. That’s a victory for us and our friends will never hear the end of it.

7. This is like item #1. Women are programmed a certain way and can’t be reformatted. Guys, if you say something incredibly stupid she will come back and hit you hard after spending a few days dwelling on it, and when you least expect it. If you’re puzzled as to why what you said was so offensive I advise you to re-read item #4.

8. So, so true. We’ll tell you how much we despise your feminine pet names for us, but we absolutely love them. Just adding a “y” to the end of any guy’s first name alone does the trick. You don’t have to get much more creative to spark a connection than that. And if it’s really flattering, please do use it in front of the guys. They all secretly wish they had pet-names too.

9. Men like attractive women. That’s part of our programming. Don’t think of yourself so highly that with you we’ll suddenly be turned off by all other beautiful women. Not going to happen. It’s healthy and we still value you above all others. But honestly, if you did look like Jessica Alba would you be dating us? We see you batting those eyes at Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

Being Gay Has Never Been This Gay

Filed under: Film,Politics — acepundit @ 12:49 am

See if you can read this synopsis of “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” without gagging:

Chuck Levine and Larry Valentine are the pride of their fire station: two guy’s guys always side-by-side and willing to do anything for each other. Grateful Chuck owes Larry for saving his life in a fire, and Larry calls in that favor big time when civic red tape prevents him from naming his own two kids as his life insurance beneficiaries. But when an overzealous, spot-checking bureaucrat becomes suspicious, the new couple’s arrangement becomes a citywide issue and goes from confidential to front-page news. Forced to improvise as love-struck newlyweds, Chuck and Larry must now fumble through a hilarious charade of domestic bliss under one roof. After surviving their mandatory honeymoon and dodging the threat of exposure, the well-intentioned con men discover that sticking together in your time of need is what truly makes a family.

Oh how visible the thought process of the writers (it took three!) who formulated this two-hour lighthearted fagfest is. Take two extremely masculine men (firefighters of course) who probably drink beer for breakfast and then force them into playing homosexuals in a series of endless gags where they must pretend to be grossed out by the sight of “icky” breasts because, of course, they’re gay. All because there is no way to name your kids next of kin other than entering into a domestic partnership.

Uh oh, is that Kevin James as Larry trying to buy tampons because, he’s gay? Comedy gold!

No points for guessing that the “lawyer” played by Jessica Biel who by chance has just broken up with her boyfriend and has no qualms with stripping in front of her clients (I guess it’s ok when it’s a gay client) will learn the “truth” about Chuck and Larry’s pseudo gayness and hook up with Sandler’s character, Chuck, in the end after he learns the true meaning of being a homo.

It’s a Happy Madison production, so of course Rob Schneider found work this year. From the previews I learned that he plays (I believe) an Asian wedding coordinator who presides over Chuck and Larry’s Jewish wedding. Can gays get married in a Jewish ceremony? I don’t know, and I wouldn’t rely on this film for accurate information on Judaism, gays, or Jewish guys pretending to be gay.

There will nevertheless be a positive pro-gay message somewhere at the end of the film, so Hollywood can say it respects homosexuality while at the same time profiting and making fun of it for two hours.

July 17, 2007

And Speaking of Hillary and the Court

Filed under: Democrats,Politics,Supreme Court — acepundit @ 10:34 pm

The two leading Democratic candidates took their typical potshots at the two newest justices with plenty of ambiguous rhetoric about “turning the clock back on civil rights” left for future appearances.

Clinton says she would “appoint well-qualified judges who really respect the Constitution,” and Barack Obama opined, “we need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teen-aged mom,” he said.

What Obama is suggesting sounds not so much like an impartial judge for the Supreme Court but some spiky-haired kid on his laptop at Starbucks or in line at a Reel Big Fish concert. They, are like, totally down with authority and The Man.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at