Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, July 27, 2009


WOW! Don Lemon of CNN deserves some credit for how he dealt with this situation. After Friday's press conference in which the Cambridge police department stood united with Sgt. James Crowley, Lemon interviewed comrades of Crowley, including Sgt. Leon Lashley who is black and was on the scene with Crowley.

The more powerful and moving comments came from Kelly King, who admitted to voting for Obama but said she will not again. Then, after she's done speaking with Lemon, King and Crowley hug in a clear show of mutual support.

There is no way a CNN anchor, which Lemon is, walked away from this unaffected and not rethinking his initial views on the incident.

h/t to American Thinker


Clearly obvious by listening to the 911 call that prompted Sgt. Steve Crowley of the Cambridge police to investigate a report of a break-in at the home of Henry Louis Gates that the woman placing the call had NO IDEA what the race of the two men who entered the home was.

In fact, as Crowley got the call from dispatch, the only information Crowley had was that the race of the two men was unknown but that one of them may have been Hispanic.


Also pretty clear is that Crowley remained calm throughout.

It's looking more and more like Gates has created an alternate reality for himself which he seems to prefer living in.

h/t to Free Republic for providing the link.


Not sure what Conyers is getting at here but we do know he's in support of a government-run insurance plan. If he believes there are things fundamentally wrong with the bill in its current form and that it should be scrapped, his statements on the video make more sense.

If, however, he's advocating passage of the bill based on the fact that it's too long to make sense out of it, we have another story altogether. Maybe you can figure it out by reading this Detroit Free Press article.

In any case, he ends up rightly implying that 1000 page bills are absurd.


h/t to CNS News.


Taking the side of Henry Louis Gates these days is shaping up as a losing proposition. His advocates (and even Gates himself) are using tactics that show it as well. As an example, rather than choosing to debate the actual incident, they choose instead to engage in arguments about racial profiling in general.

Now one of the arguments that Gates defenders tried to use in support of him could be getting debunked. Accusations that the woman who phoned in the alleged break-in was driven by race because the two men breaking in were black appear to be false.

The Boston Globe reports:
The woman, identified in a police report on file in Cambridge District Court as 40-year-old Lucia Whalen, saw the backs of both men and did not know their race when she called 911, said Wendy J. Murphy, a Boston lawyer from New England School of Law. Whalen phoned police, Murphy said, because she was aware of recent break-ins in the area.
In fact, according to Cambridge police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, not only was Walen unable to identify the men because their backs were to her but when pressed, she actually guessed that one of them was Hispanic.
In an interview at police headquarters last night, Haas said “it was very clear that she wasn’t sure’’ what the men’s race was. He also said that when the dispatcher questioned Whalen for more details, she told police she could only guess about the race of the two men. “She speculated . . . that one might be Hispanic.’’
This reality should be easily verified by listening to the 911 tape.

Kinda makes sense for the Gates apologists to move on to a more generalized discussion, doesn't it? Yet another one of their claims is ringing hollow.

If I could communicate a message to Whalen at this point, it's: BEWARE THE ACORNS!

"An Acorn doesn't fall far from the tree."
- Barack Obama, October 2008

h/t to Drudge


Time to contrast how, as the Constitutional crisis in Honduras continues, ousted president Manuel Zelaya is acting with what sitting president Roberto Micheletti has decided to do. One (Zelaya) decides to play games by camping out on the Nicaraguan side of its border with Honduras while screaming he's a victim through a megaphone with seemingly complete disregard to the possiblity of such antics causing bloodshed.

Micheletti, on the other hand, has taken a more civil tack by using the printed word to make his case to individuals, nations, multi-national groups like the UN and the OAS. In an op-ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal, Micheletti enumerates facts as he sees them.
•The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

•Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.

•The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

•Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

•The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.

•Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.

•A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Ch├ívez’s Venezuelan government.

•I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.
Has anyone noticed that Barack Obama isn't speaking out on the Honduras situation as much as he used to? His stance, and by extension, the stance of the United States is that Zelaya should be reinstated as president of Honduras. That position is becoming more and more untenable and when Barack Obama finds himself on the losing end of an argument, it's time for RULE #10 in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which is:

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Obama encapsulated his understanding of this topic when pressed by Wolf Blitzer during a debate in November, 2007 when he said this in response to a question he found uncomfortable:

"If we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it."

It is becoming ever more clear that the rule of law is on the side of Roberto Micheletti and Honduras' current government. Perhaps so much so that Zelaya is acting out in desperation instead of showing deference to the overwhelming majority of world leaders who have been in his corner.

I guess it's time to turn up that megaphone, Mr. Zelaya. It doesn't matter what you say in response to Micheletti. What matters is that you say it so loudly you drown out the facts.

h/t to Hot Air for the link to the WSJ piece.
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive