Awesome audio!  This guy is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington DC.

The arrogance of our 'leaders' who think the people are intimidating them when they voice their opinion.  He could care less about the voice of the people, he only cares about his own sorry butt.

Sean Hannity, a talk radio host knows more about the process and the facts of what happened than the dang Senator who was supposedly voting on these very issues. 

The people know more about the issue than this guy.

Great clip:

Link: sevenload.com

ROFLMAO!  (H/T/: Jawa)

Wondering about possible connections to the Londaon attempts.

Here's full post from Hot Air with updates:

Just breaking on CNN. No idea how serious or unserious this is, but supposedly there are no injuries reported. Stand by.

Update: Hmmm.

Police have confirmed a vehicle has driven into the terminal building in Glasgow Airport and is now on fire.

Earlier, the BBC reported witnesses saying a car on fire had tried to drive into the airport through the main doors

The car’s occupants were seen fighting with police inside the terminal, they said…

He said a four-wheel drive, believed to be a Land Rover, tried to drive into the building, but was stopped by barriers…

“A four by four had rammed into the building and caught on fire.

“Police were scuffling with a gentleman.”

Update: If this incident is a coincidence, it’s one hell of a coincidence: “Eyewitnesses have described a Jeep Cherokee being driven at speed towards the building with flames coming out from underneath.”

Update: Conflicting reports now. The AP is claiming that two cars collided outside the airport, one of them catching on fire and maybe careening into the terminal.

Update: Sky seems to think there’s more to it than the AP.

A 4×4 jeep has driven into the terminal building at Glasgow airport and caught fire, police have confirmed.

Witnesses reported hearing a series of loud “bangs” and saw a man on fire…

“Everyone was in a panic and police and security were scuffling with an Asian gentleman.”

“Asian” is a word commonly used in Britain to describe Pakistanis. Needless to say, if it turns out the AP is right and all the other reports and eyewitnesses are exaggerating, this’ll end up as a textbook case of terror hysteria.

Update: The Beeb is now reporting that the Jeep “exploded” and that the two men inside were both “Asian.” It can’t have been much of an explosion, thankfully, if they were still upright and able to fight with police.

Update: CNN is carrying Sky’s coverage and the teaser at the bottom is “Witness: Man seen taking gas cylinder from car before fire.” Update: All right, their web story has it now: “Witnesses said people removed gas cylinders from the jeep before it caught fire.”

Update: From the video, it looks like the Jeep didn’t penetrate the terminate but ended up right outside the doors.

Update: This deserves a post of its own (and I’ll probably give it one later), but the Scotsman has info about yesterday’s car bomb plot that I haven’t seen elsewhere. And there is, potentially, a Scottish connection:

It was reported last night that the first car, a metallic green Mercedes, was stolen in early June and was spotted first in Scotland and then in Birmingham in the two days before the bomb was defused in London.

Police say they are looking for an Iraqi who went on the run from a control order only 11 days before yesterday’s failed bombing attempts. The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is part of a six-strong cell linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq.

He went missing on 18 June in north-west England, and his whereabouts are unknown.

The Scotsman understands that MI5 and counter-terrorism police consider him a suspect in the failed attacks. However, security sources insisted he was “one of many possibilities”.

Here’s a report from the Beeb on June 21 about the Iraqi suspect; he’s the seventh terror suspect to escape while under a control order. If you don’t know what a control order is, see here.

Update: An eyewitness now tells the Beeb that the car didn’t actually explode, but was merely giving off “pops and bangs” which he suspects was burning gasoline. Another eyewitness reports hearing what sounded like an explosion.

Update: Maybe it’s the greatest coincidence in history.

Another witness told the BBC that the vehicle was a Land Rover and that there was a heavy stench of petrol after the car crashed. He said he did not believe the vehicle was a car bomb, saying that the explosion was relatively small.

That could simply be due to the car burning, but the powerful smell of gasoline is what tipped off bystanders to the second car bomb found yesterday in Park Lane.

The AP is still the only news agency to report this as a car crash.

Update: More from Sky. It seems safe to say that this was deliberate.

[T]here are reports the men were trying to fling petrol onto the flames.

Scott Gleeson said he saw the jeep speed up and swerve towards the terminal at an angle to hit the door.

Update: Some of the bystanders claimed to have tackled the Jeep’s passengers after they got out even though at least one of those passengers was on fire. If this was a car accident like the AP claims, why did people in the area react by attacking the “victims”?

Update: The AP appears to be backing off the collision scenario: “Amid fears of further attacks, a burning sport utility vehicle crashed at full speed into the terminal building at Glasgow airport in Scotland, police and witnesses said.”

Update: “Some people who were close by shouted ‘let him burn.’” More: “There was a lot of anger - if the crowds had got hold of this gentleman it would have been the end of him.”

Update: They’re showing CNN of the firefighters on the scene. They’ve got three hoses aimed at the Jeep and it’s still burning. Can’t wait to find out what the accelerant they used was.

The Goracle is pwn3d again!

Written By: Tom Swiss
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: June 29, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."

Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:

In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.

"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.

The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.

To view the IPCC expert comments, go to
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

Not many details yet, but just heard on the radio - the shamnesty bill was defeated.  The vote for cloture was defeated to be more precise.

Either way, a win!

This in from Drudge:

"Enough senators to stop the immigration bill have voted to block it. A roll call is continuing and the vote is not final... "

 Watch out Rudolph!  The Russians are coming:

Kremlin lays claim to large chunk of oil-rich North Pole.

And we can't drill for oil in our own state of Alaska because of Caribou.

Wonder if we'll hear any outrage from the enviro-nazis on this one?

This is the most chilling article I've ever read on how environmentalists want to implement their intiatives.

One of the most chilling aspects of this article is that the proponent thinks these changes would be brought about by the right-wing, not the left!  I read that and couldn't believe it.

This guy is definately blinded as to which political side is advocating for this type of 'global-governance'.  Has this guy ever even heard of Al Gore?  Would he call Al Gore a 'right-winger'?  Would you?

If this doesn't make your blood run cold as to the true intentions of these folks, nothing will.  I'm surprised he's as open about it as he is.  You'll never hear any of the 'greenies' in America call for this as overtly as stated here (at least not yet).

Posted from Physorg.com: (emphasis throughout is mine)

Don't like my title, too bad, I'm from Texas.

Seems that 4.4 billion dollars in the amnesty-that-isn't-but is bill which was promised and touted and dangled to conservatives, pundits and opponents of the bill - that money the President, Tony Snow, Kennedy and others screamed would be there and used to begin enforcment of border security - can be used to implement other portions of the legislation which doesn't include border security enforcement, primarily the 'Z' visa. 

Posted from MichelleMalkin:

DeMint’s office issued this press release on a CRS report that contradicts the shamnesty crowd:

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) released Wednesday a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which says the new Senate immigration bill contains a major loophole in border security. Supporters of the bill say it provides $4.4 billion in immediate mandatory spending for border enforcement, but according to the CRS analysis, the funds could also be used immediately to implement the amnesty provisions bill.

“This is just another example of how this bill claims to do one thing but does something else entirely. It’s another example of an empty promise being used to buy votes for amnesty,” said Senator DeMint. “The supporters of this bill have been running around trying to convince people that this money will be used to secure the border first, but now we know that’s not the case. If you read the fine print, the bill says this money can also be used for amnesty.”

Here’s the conclusion of the CRS report:

In response to your question concerning whether the $4.4 billion in funding appropriated under the Immigration Security Account could be used to fund the processing of Y or Z visas under Titles IV and VI of S. 1639, S. 1639 appears to require that the trigger mechanisms be funded first. Receiving, processing, and adjudicating applications for the Z visa authorized by Title VI of the Act is one of the trigger mechanisms outlined in Section 1; this means that funding from the Immigration Security Account could be used for this purpose. Section 2(C) would allow DHS to expend any funds remaining after the trigger mechanisms have been fullyfunded on certain activities, including theimplementation of the programs authorized in Titles IV and VI of the Act. Thus, it appears that funding for the Y visa (and other programs) authorized by Title IV of the Act could only be made available through the Immigration Security Account once the trigger mechanisms had been met. However, S. 1639 does not explicitly stipulate whether the certification required bySection 1 would have to take place prior to fundingbeing made available for the additional purposes outlined in Section 2(C).

Instead of building the fence/wall, hiring agents and other enforcment actions, that money can be used for implementing the 'Z' visa.

For live-bloggin of Senate debate (what debate, Reid isn't letting the Republicans do anything) head on over to Michelle's site.

So says a lib commentor in response to this post I put up earlier today:

Liberal Talk Radio - A List.

She posted this in response:

Beware. This is NOT about shutting up or "balancing" the unbalanceable Limbaugh or Bill-O. It's about accessing the airwaves - opening them up to more liberal shows. The airwaves ARE PUBLICLY OWNED. They are NOT the exclusive domain of the rightwing propagandists. Leave this argument to the TH folks and you've got a conspiracy against rightwing talk. Not so.

The issue is about the rightwing glutting the airwaves to the point that any one area of the country is flooded with rightwing talk, but only the rare liberal talk show. Balance the airwaves of right and left and you've got a deal worth fighting for.

The reason the rightwing noise machine is conflating this issue of balance on the airwaves with muzzling the Limbaughs of talk radio is because they are TERRIFIED of the fact that if more people have access to liberal talk radio on the airwaves in any given market, more people will come to see other viewpoints that are out there. The same reasoning as they have with voting: the more voters that are registered, the more the Democratic party wins. It's a known fact.

Seriously, turn on your radio and go up and down the AM dial. How many rightwing talk shows do you hear as opposed to leftwing? Is it balanced? In my market - in a blue state, mind you - I can't get ONE liberal talk show to come in clearly, but I have access to at least 5 rightwingnuts blabbing in unison up and down the dial.

She doesn't realize she makes my point for me.  She's exactly right, it's not about "fairness" or "balance", it's about access and shutting down conservatives.

However, she takes the tac that people don't have access to "alternatives points of view." 

She doesn't understand about the market.  You can't find liberals jabbering all over the airwaves because people don't want to listen to it!

People want conservatives, they don't want libs.

Wake up kimberlyric, it's not a conspiracy of the right we're talking about.  

It's the tyranny of the left. 

Apparently, the National Parks Service believes the Statue was a gift from France to them, and not to America.

Read the nanny-statists and they're excuses about not re-opening the crown of the statue to tourists:

"We haven't been inclined to reopen the crown access to the Statue of Liberty because we can't ensure the health and safety of our visitors, regardless of terrorism," a national spokesman for NPS, David Barna, told FOXNews.com. "I don't expect the park service to change its mind."

The confined area is a fire hazard, Barna said. He added that visitors making the strenuous climb to the crown risk heat exhaustion and other health risks.

"We want to guarantee the best we can the health and safety of the general public," Barna said.  - excerpted from FoxNews.com

Fire hazard?  The statue is made of steel and copper.  I thought fire couldn't melt steel?  (couldn't help it)

So, instead of figuring out a way to make access easier or more comfortable, we'll just deny access?

And how about this ridiculous gem:

“That staircase was never meant for visitors. It’s a workman’s staircase,” Feeney said. He said it wasn't clear when the stairway to the crown became open to the public.

A staff study in the late 1990s found that it was a safety hazard to allow people to go up to the crown. In 2000, a private engineering company reached the same findings about safety issues and fire hazards, Feeney said. - excerpted from FoxNews.com

A workman's staircase?  I guess that is a workman ventilation area at the top of the crown as seen in this photograph:

If there isn't some legitimate concern about damage to the structure itself  (it was repired, refurbished and strengthened only twenty years ago), there should be no reason the people this monument was intended for should not be allowed to enjoy it.

Perhaps now, by the Park Service acting as a nanny-state agent, the statue is now representative of what America has become and stands for.  Hmm.

I wonder if any of the following 29 liberal/prograssive talk radio hosts affer fairness or equal time on their shows or networks:  (list posted from Wikipedia)

Following each host is their present network, syndicator, or station.

• Doug Basham (RadioLinx)
• David Bender (Air America Radio)
• Alex Bennett (Sirius Satellite Radio)
• Peter B. Collins (Nova M Radio)
• Alan Colmes (Fox News Radio)
• Jack Ellery (WCTC, New Brunswick, NJ)
• Jon Elliot (Air America Radio)
• Laura Flanders (Air America Radio)
• Thom Hartmann (Air America Radio)
• Karel (KGO, San Francisco, CA)
• Lionel (WOR Radio Network)
• Rachel Maddow (Air America Radio)
• Mike Malloy (Nova M Radio)
• Jay Marvin (KKZN, Denver, CO)
• Stephanie Miller (Jones Radio Networks)
• Mike Newcomb (RadioLinx)
• Bill Press (Jones Radio Networks)
• Randi Rhodes (Air America Radio)
• Keri Rodrigues (WSAR, Somerset, MA)
• Neil Rogers (WQAM, Miami, FL)
• Ed Schultz (Jones Radio Networks)
• Sam Seder (Air America Radio)
• Harry Shearer (National Public Radio)
• Michelangelo Signorile (Sirius Satellite Radio)
• Ray Taliaferro (KGO, San Francisco, CA)
• Stacy Taylor (KLSD, San Diego, CA)
• Bernie Ward (KGO, San Francisco, CA)
• Peter Werbe (WRIF, Detroit, MI)
• The Young Turks (Air America Radio)

This list is most certanly not all-inclusive.

Where exactly is the "lack of fairness"?  Does this constitute a lack of "balance"?  Would any of these shows/networks allow Rush Limbaugh equal time on their dime?

PS - I haven't heard of more than a few of these people and am not sure if they are still on the air.  The Wiki entry is current though, as reliable as Wiki can be.

Either way, the libs arguments about a "lack of " whatever in talk radio is bullshinola.

Gotta love Ann! 

Great quote.  (H/T: RWN)

"In the corporeal world, international law is whatever
the United States and Great Britain say it is."

-- Ann Coulter

Once again, the government is taking aim at "television violence" and people miss the point on this issue entirely.

Gander at this:

Rockefeller wants to change that. He announced plans to introduce legislation next month to allow federal regulation of "indecent, violent and profane content" on broadcast, cable and satellite TV, excoriating Hollywood for "a never-ending race to the bottom" fueled by corporate greed.

"We now know that the entertainment and broadcasting industry has proven itself unable and unwilling to police itself," Rockefeller said. "I fear that graphic violent programming has become so pervasive and has been shown to be so harmful, we are left with no choice but to have the government step in." - excerpt from the LA Times.

What?  The industry hasn't policed itself?  Corporate greed?

Over the last ten to fifteen years we have had the following instituted in relation to this type of programming:

The television rating system.
Revised movie rating system.
Warning labels prior to violent or provocative programming.
Warning labels on music.
The "V" chip.
Technology allowing channels/programs to be blocked.
"Personalities" removed from the air due to inappropriate material - Howard Stern and Imus most notably.

All of this at the behest of groups and people demanding "something be done".

Well, several things have been done.  But as predicted by many, those "fixes" did more harm than good for the industry.

Take the TV ratings system.  Prior to the implementation of it, the industry pretty much policed itself as far as content.  Most programming was tasteful, with only a few exceptions pushing the envelope.  However, pundits warned that if a ratings system were implemented, programming would take a definite slide south.  If you institute a ratings system, you give programmers/networks an excuse to create inappropriate shows.  And you give them cover by allowing for the "ratings" excuse.  They can point to the ratings and say "Look, we put up the rating and the content warning, people know what they're getting."  There is no more responsibility because of the crutch that "ratings" give them.

The same thing happened in music and with movies.  Although there aren't that many NC-17 movies, PG-13 movies have skyrocketed.  All PG-13 does is allow filmmakers more leeway in the crap they put in the movie - more foul language and suggestive material.

All of this was done at the behest of the government and it had the exact opposite effect of that which was intended - as usual.

Now the government wants more.  They complain about the violence and other material, never acknowledging their complicity in the debasement they rail against.

As always, no one makes the argument that government intervention isn't the answer.  Let the market decide.

Of course, that isn't the intention of the likes of Sen. Rockefeller in my opinion.  He wants control of the information industry.

If you control what the people see, read, hear, etc. you can more easily manipulate them.  Why do you think there is such an uproar from the left about re-instituting the "Fairness Doctrine"?  Because market driven talk radio is effective in countering their stranglehold on traditional media.

If government controls the media, they control the information.  Control of information leads directly to control of the people and then the individual.

And what's with this corporate greed crap?  Right from the politics of envy.  The uninitiated and uninformed are naturally going to rail against "evil corporations" (apparently unable to discern they, the people, are responsible for the wealth and influence of those same corporations).  His arguments also appeal to the "nanny-staters" who rely on government to do everything for them (also apparently unable to discern they, the People, have more control over the entertainment industry by pushing a few buttons on a remote control, than giving the power to the government.)

I can't stand some of the crap on TV nowadays either.  Like most people, I like to be entertained, not disgusted or offended.  But I can exercise ultimate control over my own material, the government doesn't know best for me or mine:

I can change the channel or turn the TV off.

 

Illustrated: