September 27-28, 2007
Sep 27 07:23 It's All About the Headline Sep 27 10:27 Back to the Straight & Narrow? Sep 27 11:21 Hillary Is Against Torture... Sep 28 09:36 Clinton Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Sep 28 10:38 Pelosi Criticizes Border Fence Sep 28 11:27 Civil Rights Leader vs. A Wannabe Sep 28 12:24 A Frenchman I Can Admire Sep 28 13:43 Another AQI Leader Assumes Room Temperature Sep 28 17:44 Of Course It Isn't Harmful
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006
It's All About the Headline
The Seattle Times has another editorial about Gen. Petraeus and the MoveOn.org ad . It's written by someone named John Tuttle. Mr. Tuttle's contention is that the headline isn't how MoveOn's ad should be judged. In his editorial, he argues that the ad should be based on the content of the ad. I'd submit that it should be judged mostly on its accusation in the subtitle. Here's what Mr. Tuttle's editorial says:
The storyline continues. The editorialist says that Gen. Petraeus is a "military guy with political ambitions" and that he's "a spokesman for the Bush administration's failed Iraq policy." Therefore, "why should he be immune from criticism"?Your editorial criticized MoveOn.org's advertisement about Gen. David Petraeus, but did you actually read the ad or only the headline? [ "MoveOn.org's demeaning attack" Editorial, Sept. 23]. If so, what do you dispute in the text of the ad?
That "every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge has failed." Or that, "the Pentagon has a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on the violence" such as "assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head, not the front."
Do you dispute that "we'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed."
Do you disagree with the assertion that "Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war"? (Incidentally, MoveOn.org has links to various independent articles and reports substantiating the points in their ad.)
As far as the headline, why didn't you point out that Gen. Petraeus has political ambitions? Not only has he expressed interest in running for president, he has been promoted as a potential presidential candidate by such right-wing luminaries as Kathryn Jean Lopez and Bill Kristol.
As a military guy with political ambitions and a spokesman for the Bush administration's failed Iraq policy, political organizations have every right to criticize him and his self-serving spin on our "achieved progress" in Iraq. Why should he be immune from criticism just because he is wearing a fancy uniform and is supposedly a "well-respected" general?
Let's also examine the assertion that "Gen. Petraeus has political ambitions..." I googled David Petraeus' 'political ambitions' just to see if there was any truth to that. The only article I found that talked about Gen. Petraeus' supposed political ambitions is this Mother Jones article :
The Petraeus-for-President scenario is out there, confirms Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of the popular beltway blog, the Washington Note. "A lot of people around him are beginning to think it's the natural way." Petraeus, he adds, could find himself on a "Wes Clark-like track, but on the Republican side."It's possible that Gen. Petraeus has political aspirations, though I couldn't find verifiable proof of that anywhere other than in the Mother Jones article. Therefore, I don't find merit in Mr. Tuttle's claim. I'd submit that most people who watched him testify concluded that he's straightforward and trustworthy.
I'd further submit that the headline and subheadline are the things that should be subject to the most debate. We should examine why a political organization makes the accusation that a credible general like Gen. Petraeus is "cooking the books for the White House."
While I doubt that MoveOn.org is the organizing force behind these attacks, it's certainly reasonable to say that they're fueling it by posting talking points on their website for editorialists to work from.
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:24 AM
No comments.
Back to the Straight & Narrow?
Let's hope that Republicans have learned their lesson about spending like Democrats. Let's hope that they're back to being a reform-minded political force.Let's hope that this John Boehner op-ed foretells of a step in the right direction.
I've never made a secret of my distaste for worthless pork. Just a few months after being elected as majority leader last year, we enacted comprehensive reforms that brought the earmark process out into broad daylight. All taxpayer-funded earmarks had to be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and debate. If you sponsor a project, we argued, you ought to be willing to put your name on it and defend it, and if not, you shouldn't ask taxpayers to pay for it. These reforms were the right thing to do, and they still are.David Obey started the slide by telling appropriators not to include earmarks until the conference committee:
The Democratic majority came to power in January promising to do a better job on earmarks. They appeared to preserve our reforms and even take them a bit further. I commended Democrats publicly for this action.
Unfortunately, the leadership reversed course. Desperate to advance their agenda, they began trading earmarks for votes, dangling taxpayer-funded goodies in front of wavering members to win their support for leadership priorities.
The Democrats' retreat began quietly, with passage of a "continuing resolution" in February that contained hidden earmarks. It steadily became more blatant. A troop funding bill was loaded with pork-barrel spending for things like spinach and peanuts, which one top Democrat publicly conceded was only in the bill to buy votes. Members were denied the ability to challenge individual earmarks on the House floor, stepping back from our original reforms and leaving members with no way to force a floor debate and vote on any earmark, even if it violated the rules or was particularly egregious.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.This could be a winning issue for the GOP because it would provide a stark contrast as to which is the reform-minded political party. The last thing John Murtha, Jim Oberstar or Robert Byrd want is transparency with regards to earmarks. It isn't a stretch to think that John Murtha hates earmark transparency as much as vampires hates wooden stakes.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.
Such requests total billions of dollars .
The RNC, NRCC and the NRSC should make reform a major part of their campaign next year because Democrats have stumbled so badly on the issue. I can't say that their failure to enact effective earmark reform is the reason why voters give the 110th Congress awful ratings but it's obvious that it isn't helping.
Here in Minnesota, we're making Jim Oberstar's earmarks a big issue because his earmarks took money out of the transportation budget just so he could build some bike trails. they'll be effective because we're pointing out how earmarks steal money from higher priority items.
Under the procedures of the current House leadership, members still cannot force a debate or vote on any earmark in any non-appropriations bill that comes to the floor. This flawed system is ripe for abuse. It steps backward from the reforms Republicans implemented last year and makes a mockery of Democrats' promise to run a more transparent and accountable Congress.Last summer, I attended a fundraiser for Michele Bachmann. Then-Speaker Dennis Hastert was the featured guest. After the formal part of the event, I had the good fortune to talk with him. I started by saying that anyone that thinks that Democrats were agents of change were either ill-informed or delusional. Speaker Hastert agreed, saying that Charlie Rangel, who's been there 40 years, John Dingell, who's been there 50 years and numerous others who'd been there 30+ years, shouldn't be considered as anything other than agents of the status quo.
On June 12, I and other GOP leaders introduced legislation that would fully restore our reforms and require all earmarks in all types of bills, tax, appropriations, or authorizing, to be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and open debate on the floor.This is Nancy Pelosi's biggest nightmare. That petition isn't something that Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha or David Obey want to succeed. If they get 218 signatures for this discharge petition, Democrats will be forced to either abandon their most effective vote-getting tool or defend an indefensible policy.
Since then I've repeatedly asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to work with us to correct this loophole, but there has been no action. Left with no other option, I filed a discharge petition in the House to force a vote on our reforms. Once this petition receives 218 member signatures, House rules require the majority to bring it to the House floor for an up-or-down vote.
Congratulations to the GOP for taking steps back to their refomist roots. There's still more than needs to be done but they're heading in the right direction.
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:33 AM
No comments.
Hillary Is Against Torture...
That isn't a startling headline since it's parroted by practically every presidential candidate. This quote will haunt her during next fall's campaign, though:
"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.That definitive statement will cause Hillary lots of problems next fall because she all but admitted that she won't do everything in her power to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks. While the anti-torture position is popular inside the Beltway, it isn't popular in the Heartland. People that I talk with want the feds to do everything in their power to protect us.
When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:If this were any other issue, people might say that this is just another example of a politician talking out both sides of her mouth. But this isn't just any issue. That answer isn't the way to convince people that you're serious about a president's first affirmative duty: to protect the people from all enemies. In fact, it isn't a stretch to think that she doesn't know what she'd do if that situation presented itself. That's hardly the type of position Hillary wants to put herself in.
"Well, I'll talk to him later."
She may have to give herself that talk, too.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to bepreparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."
She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.
Hillary's mistake wasn't the only dumb answer given last night:
The ex-New York mayor came under fire for voicing his readiness to attack Iran to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. Clinton was accused by some of her rivals of playing into President Bush's hands by voting for an anti-Iran Senate resolution.Having Joe Biden say that Rudy doesn't know what he's talking about highlights Sen. Biden's stupidity. Most people don't take him seriously as a presidential candidate. In fact, some think he's really running for Vice President. If Hillary or Obama get the nomination, the biggest mistake they could make is naming an ill-infomred loose cannon like Sen. Biden to be their running mate.
"I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point," said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), arguing there is a lot of diplomacy to be done first.
"Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," zinged Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.). "He's the most uninformed person on American foreign policy now running forPresident."
Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:24 AM
No comments.
Clinton Judge Rules Against Patriot Act
Ann Aiken , a judge appointed by Bill Clinton, has ruled parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional :
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow secret wiretapping and searches without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.Judge Aiken should dust off the law books. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Court after court has ruled that warrantless searches are constitutional. If her ruling stands the appeals process, it would cripple the intelligence community's ability to surveil.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Let's be blunt about something: It's time that we junked FISA. In the past, ConLaw professors have said that it's unconstitutional. Let's test that theory. Let's file a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. Let's do something so judges like Ann Aiken can't write opinions like this:
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law, with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.The reality is that jurists have recognized the legitimate right of warrantless surveillances. Judge Aiken should've read this post by Powerline's John Hinderaker before making her ruling. Had she read it and taken it to heart, she wouldn't have ruled the way she did.
It isn't a stretch to say that Judge Aiken is simply another activist judge ruling the way she thinks the Constitution should say rather than on what it does say . In that respect, she's no different than Anna Diggs-Taylor , who made a similar ruling last year.
The bad news for serious people is that, whereas Diggs-Taylor's ruling was overturned by the Sixth District appellate court, the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals will hear the appeal to Aiken's ruling.
As usual, the liberal idiots are out in force talking about the supposedly shameful record that the Bush administration has on civil liberties:
Garrett Epps, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said the ruling adds to the poor record that the Bush administration has piled up in defending the Patriot Act.I'd argue differently. What's embarrassing is the judiciary's acting to blind us in a time of war. What's embarrassing is a judiciary that is so activist that it willfully ignores precedent. What's embarrassing are jurists like Ms. Aiken & Ms. Diggs-Taylor. What's embarrassing are professors like Dr. Epps, who let ideology cloud their judgment.
"It's embarrassing," Epps said. "It represents another judicial repudiation of this administration's terrorist surveillance policies."
This ruling tells us why presidential elections matter so much. If we don't elect a president who believes in the strict constructionist approach, our ability to detect terrorists in our midst will be greatly hampered.
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 9:37 AM
No comments.
Pelosi Criticizes Border Fence
In another signal that she's an open borders proponent, Speaker Pelosi criticized the border fence currently being built . She made these comments as part of her pandering to the Hispanic Engineering, Science & Technology Week conference (HESTEC).
"I have been against the fence, I thought it's a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "These are communities where you have a border going through them, they are not communities where you have a fence splitting them."In making these comments, Ms. Pelosi is essentially saying that she's placing a higher priority on not splitting up communities than on enforcing the law. She's also essentially saying that 'not splitting up communities' is a higher priority than closing down the border so we can stop terrorists before they get here.
Ms. Pelosi's pandering shows that Democrats put politics ahead of national security. Simply put, Ms. Pelosi's panderfest is meant to collect votes. Based on these quotes, it's obvious that she either doesn't care about setting intelligent national security policy or she's willing to deceive Hispanics with her rhetoric while practicing another thing.
That isn't the only subject on which she pandered:
Pelosi also touted legislation known as the DREAM Act that would make it easier for some illegal immigrants to receive higher education benefits. She spoke at a conference that drew more than 5,000 students for activities designed to inspire careers in science and technology.We fought against the DREAM Act here in Minnesota. In fact, conservative activists and legislators like Dan Severson got it dropped from the conference report after differing versions had passed the House and Senate. Activists pointed out that Minnesota taxpayers subsidize the lower in-state tuition rates.
The DREAM Act would eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing illegal immigrants with lower in-state tuition rates. It also would allow permanent residency for illegal immigrants who entered the country as children and have been admitted toan institution of higher education.
"It just isn't fair," Pelosi said. "Those young people who came to America one way or another...their opportunities are curtailed because of the situation. And it's not only harmful to them; it's harmful to the country."
Ms. Pelosi wants to talk about what's fair? Let's talk fair then. What's fair about forcing parents, whose burden is stiff enough in sending their own children to college, much less burdening them with additional taxes so illegal immigrants can get the same tuition rates as their children? What's fair about illegal immigrant children then using that college degree to compete with students who got the lower tuition rates legitimately?
I don't think that that's fair at all. I'd bet the ranch that most people across the nation would agree with me.
It's our job on the Right Blogosphere to expose such duplicitousness. If we don't expose the folly of Democrats' policies, then we deserve to get beat next November.
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 10:40 AM
No comments.
Civil Rights Leader vs. A Wannabe
This video of Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly ridiculing Dr. Boyce Watkins' remarks is must viewing:
In my opinion, Dr. Watkins is a parasite who's living off of the virtuous, positive movement that Dr. Martin Luther King started. Dr. Watkins doesn't have a bit of moral standing after calling Juan Williams a "happy negro". Dr. Watkins doesn't have the moral right to criticize Juan Williams about anything.
Juan Williams is a man for whom the Civil Rights Movement is deeply personal. Anyone who's paid attention to Juan Williams knows that he's a proud man who's been inspired by the Civil Rights Movement that Dr. Martin Luther King gave his life for. Anyone who's paid attention to Juan Williams knows about his appreciation for Justice Thurgood Marshall.
I'd further state that Bill Cosby and Juan Williams better represent the type of ideals that Dr. King espoused. Let's also include Rep. John Lewis in that group, too. These men are the type of men that represent the best that the Civil Rights Movement had to offer. They are the real leaders, not charlatans like Boyce Watkins.
I'd stongly recommend that everyone buy and read these books if you haven't already done so:
Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary
Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 11:28 AM
No comments.
A Frenchman I Can Admire
That's the best way for me to talk about French President Nicholas Sarkozy after his speech to the UN General Assembly. Based on his column , it's apparent that that's Charles Krauthammer's opinion, too:
On the largest possible stage, the U.N. General Assembly, President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot. He declared Iran's nuclear ambitions "an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world."Any French president with the courage to state that policy with that conviction is someone I can deal with. In fact, I wish there were more like-minded Western European leaders in the Sarkozy mold. Sarkozy's statements have put Democrats in a bit of a box, though. For months (years really), we've heard about how 'The World' hates us because of President Bush's reckless policies. That paradigm is losing credibility because leaders like President Sarkozy are embracing President Bush's policies.
His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, had earlier said that the world faces two choices, successful diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program or war. And Sarkozy himself has no great hopes for the Security Council, where China and Russia are blocking any effective action against Iran. He does hope to get the European Union to join the U.S. in imposing serious sanctions.
"Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace," he warned. "They lead to war." This warning about appeasement was intended particularly for Germany, which for commercial reasons has been resisting U.S. pressure to support effective sanctions.
That's the reason why the landscape in Washington has shifted so dramatically:
Just this week, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for very strong sanctions on Iran and urging the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist entity. A similar measure passed the Senate Wednesday by 76-22, declaring that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from using Shiite militias inside Iraq to subvert the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.In other words, Democrats are backpedalling from their vitriolic anti-war rhetoric, a fact I'm sure isn't lost on the inhabitants at DailyKos , MoveOn.org and other refuges of the incoherent fringe of the Democratic Party. In fact, MoveOn.org is up in arms about the Senate passing a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad:
A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq, most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?
This change in mood and subject is entirely the result of changes on the ground. It takes time for reality to seep into a Washington debate. But after the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, the reality of the relative success of our new counterinsurgency strategy, and the renewed possibility of ultimate success in Iraq, became no longer deniable.
Statement: I will fight backAs we get closer to Election Day, the Incoherent Left's demands will become louder and more shrill. That's going to put Mrs. Clinton in a difficult position. This isn't unlike the situation that John Kerry found himself in in 2004. Mrs. Clinton can't ignore the Incoherent Left but she can't pander to them either. She needs their votes because she won't win over independents and moderates, especially if Rudy's the GOP nominee. She'll also need their help with her GOTV operation.
The U.S. Senate just told you to sit down and be quiet. They passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org and it has one purpose: to intimidate all of us who care about responsibly ending this war. They wanted to send a message that anyone who speaks unpleasant truths about this war will pay. To make everyone, especially politicians, think twice before they accuse the administration of lying.
We can't let that happen, so we're letting Congress know that they're not going to intimidate us. Can you sign on to this statement?
A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative.
Hillary's problem is that she's in big trouble if she doesn't make a clear delineation between her policies and the Incoherent Left's policies.
Thanks to President Sarkozy's tough stance on Iran and his offering to send troops to Iraq, Dermocrats suddenly find themselves caught between Iraq and a difficult place. Thank You, President Sarkozy.
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 28-Sep-07 10:06 PM
Makes me almost want to come out and admit that I'm half French..
Another AQI Leader Assumes Room Temperature
Minutes ago, CNN reported that Abu Osama al-Tunisi was killed. Al-Tunisi was a key leader in AQI. The Guardian reported that al-Tunisi was killed in a US airstrike on Tuesday:
The US military today said one of the most senior al-Qaida figures in Iraq has been killed in an air strike, describing it as a "key loss" to the terror network. Brigadier General Joseph Anderson said Abu Usama al Tunisi had been instrumental in bringing foreign fighters into Iraq.This should silence Sen. Schumer after his foolish statements about how the surge wasn't responsible for the Sunni sheikhs turning on AQI terrorists in al-Anbar Province:
"Abu Usama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders...the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle," he said.
Brig Gen Anderson also described al-Tunisi, a Tunisian, as a close associate of and likely successor to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the Egyptian believed to head al-Qaida in Iraq.
We've heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. "They're cleared, they're safe." And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.We wouldn't be getting the high quality intelligence it takes to find and kill a major terrorist leader if the people didn't trust Americans. This airstrike simply wouldn't have happened if the Iraqi people didn't trust us.
The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, "We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves." It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.
That isn't the only good news coming from Iraq:
Addressing a Pentagon press conference from Baghdad, he said recent operations involving both Iraqi and US forces had helped halve the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq, numbers of which had been running at around 60 to 80 a month.It sounds to me like the surge has foreign terrorists in total disarray. It sounds like the extra troops are preventing terrorists from initially entering Iraq, too. I'd say that that's pretty good results for a failed strategy that needs changing ASAP.
Brig Gen Anderson claimed the US was having "great success" in isolating pockets of foreign militants in remote areas.
"They are very broken up, very unable to mass and conducting very isolated operations," he said.
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment 1 by Liberal Wanker at 28-Sep-07 04:56 PM
except he died a year ago
http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0706/iraqmartyr0706-2.pdf
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-07 06:01 PM
except he died a year ago
http://www.globalterroralert.com/pdf/0706/iraqmartyr0706-2.pdf
Then how do you explain this?
The general said the September 25 strike that killed al-Tunisi was a "significant blow" to al Qaeda in Iraq, which he said has been severely disrupted by US operations and may now be reassessing its position in Iraq.
Obviously, one of these accounts is wrong or there are more than one Abu Osama al-Tunisi.
PS- Stop being such a wanker.
Of Course It Isn't Harmful
That's the sarcastic answer I'd give Nancy Pelosi after reading about her latest foolish quote . Here's what the uproar is about:
A controversial advertisement for a San Francisco festival that depicts the Last Supper as a sadomasochism party falls within the First Amendment and is not harmful to Christianity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.It's insulting to think that Ms. Pelosi would try spinning such a disgusting thing this way. QUESTION: Why do Democrats automatically resort to "It's a First Amendment issue" every time one of their perverts starts spewing this type of disgusting stuff? We know that people have the right to say this type of stuff. It isn't about the First Amendment in the sense that it's a matter of public decency.
The ad for the Folsom Street Fair, to be held in Pelosi's district on Sunday and which is partly funded by San Francisco's Grants for the Arts program, which is funded by the city's hotel tax, sparked outrage from Christian groups because it mirrors Leonardo Da Vinci's famous painting of "The Last Supper" but replaces Jesus and his apostles with scantily leather-clad men and women sitting at a table adorned with sex toys.
Here's an exchange between a CNS correspondent and Ms. Pelosi:
CNSNews.com: "I'd like to get local or a second and talk about what's going on in San Francisco. Your spokesman old the Bay Area Reporter that the Folsom Street Fair advertisement mocking the last supper would not harm Christianity. I'm wondering if you find the advertisement personally offensive."Why should Christians, who believe that Christ died a virgin, tolerate this type of thing? Would Ms. Pelosi stay silent if someone characterized gays as sexual deviants far outside the mainstream? Of course she wouldn't. Then why shouldn't Christians be incensed with this disgusting mischaracterization of Christ and His apostles?
"And as a follow up, the city's rants for the Arts program, funded by the city's hotel tax, subsidizes the air. Do you think that it's fair to tax everyone who visits San Francisco and stays in a hotel to support the fair?"
Pelosi: "Well that's not really a local question. That's a constitutional question. That's a religious question. That's as big a global question as you can ask. I'm a big believer in First Amendment and therefore, as I said in my statement, I do not believe that Christianity has been harmed by the Folsom Street Fair advertising."
This ad is the epitome of intolerance and insensitivity. Ms. Pelosi's response is the ultimate in nonjudgmentalism. Unfortunately, neither action is surprising.
Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 28-Sep-07 06:28 PM
Suppose this were a depiction of Allah and his followers. Would San Fran Gran Nan be so blase about it?
LL
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-07 10:03 PM
Suppose this were a depiction of Allah and his followers. Would San Fran Gran Nan be so blase about it?
Of course they would. After all, this is the tolerance police. Toleration is their middle name.
Comment 3 by cali_sun at 29-Sep-07 01:14 AM
This is really no surprise at all, liberals always find a way to protect perverts. For us christians, we know that christianity is a thorn in SF's eye, SF is the modern Soddom and Gemorrhah; the world capital of homosexuals, their outrageous behavior, and stain on America. Liberals always have the audacity to insult christians, and make excuses.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 29-Sep-07 05:43 AM
Liberals always have the audacity to insult christians, and make excuses.
Comment by cali_sun 29Sep2007
You're so exactly right, Cali. They have no decency.
