Precinct 333

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Dem Dictator Seeks City Censorship Of Public Pres Pics

Lancaster is a beautiful town in eastern Pennsylvania, in the heart of Amish country. Its publicly-owned farmer's market dates to the 1730s, and is probably the oldest one continuously operating in the United States. It is also on the front line of the battle for free speech in America.
A Democratic city councilman has demanded that a baker remove photos of President Bush from his stand in Lancaster's venerable farmers market, saying the city needs a "healing period" following the bitterly contested presidential election.

City Councilman Nelson Polite approached David Stoltzfus last month and asked him to remove the pictures. When Stoltzfus refused, Polite vowed to pursue a city ordinance that would ban all political items from public places in the city.

Polite said the photo offended city Democrats.

"I just feel that since it was a close election and the city's so divided, that we should have a healing period," Polite told the New Era of Lancaster on Friday.

George W. Bush

Polite said the photo should come down because "this is a public market" and that the public display of political paraphernalia is inappropriate and divisive.

"Bush didn't win here (in Lancaster City). It is like rubbing salt on a wound," he said.

I am speechless -- which is exactly where a pompous fool like the inappropriately named Polite would have Republicans. So let's let him know -- "Polite"-ly, of course -- what we think of him and his unAmerican attempt to prevent patriotic Americans from displaying pictures of our recently reelected President.

Mr. Nelson M. Polite
540 North Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 392-4655
(717) 392-3434 (Fax)


Nice Going, Kid!

A big part of the reason i started this blog is to be able to respond to liberal idiocy and hypocrisy that appears in the press. Dan Schwartz of Plymouth, Minnesota, a student at the University of Minnesota, did me one better -- he actually got printed in the Minneapolis "Red" Star-Tribune, responding to a piece in the paper written by someone named Susan Lenfestey.

I'm particularly fond of this part:
Unfortunately, she leaves out what Democrats take greatest comfort in: Watching Republicans change the world, complaining it was done incorrectly and taking credit for any positive outcomes. That's how the party that ended slavery became labeled anti-minority compared with the Democrats who fought to keep slavery alive, how the party of gay rights told homosexuals in the military it was all right to be gay as long as they kept it a secret, and how liberals have, according to Lenfestey, become the group that will "mourn innocent Iraqis who have been maimed or killed."

Were these liberals mourning Iraqis when Saddam Hussein ignored Iraqi law and endorsed amputations as punishment? Did liberals object when the Baath Party used rape, torture and beheadings for more than a decade to suppress those who spoke unfavorably of them? Did liberals protest the chemical-weapon-based genocide of Iraqi Kurds? No, either they forgot or never cared to begin with.

In the 1998 election year their preoccupation with abortion rights must have made it too difficult to fight for the 7,000 Iraqis killed and 10,000 injured in five days of Saddam's gassing. In 1991, it must have taken too much liberal effort to speak out against corporate oil greed to care about protecting Kuwait.

Nicely done.


It's Christmas, So Some Attack Christian Symbols

I can't help but be disturbed by the amount of anti-Christian hate this Christmas season.

No, I'm not talking about the media.

I'm not even talking about the Democrats and the rest of the liberal elite and their compulsive hatred of all things biblical.

I'm talking about these:

Nativity scenes vandalized nationwide.
Jesus statue decapitated.
Statue attacked at LDS Temple.

But since it is only Christians and their faith being attacked, there is no hate crime problem.

When will the authorities pay attention to these hate crimes, and treat them as such?


Monday, December 06, 2004

Reid Rips Thomas. Ignorance, Racism, Or Both?

On the air over the weekend with Tim Russert, Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following statement about a possible Bush appointment of Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice.
Russert: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?

Reid: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

Unfortunately, Russert failed to press Reid for an explanation, or an example of the justice's shortcomings. That's too bad, because Clarence Thomas is known for his legal craftsmanship. James Taranto points to Thomas' dissent in the University of Michigan affirmative action case, Grutter v. Bollinger, as among his favorite Thomas opinions. I much prefer his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, in which he urges a rethinking of the Establishment Clause jurisprudence developed over the last 50 years.

That leaves me asking if Reid's comments were based upon ignorance or racism. Is Reid simply relying on what others have said without doing any investigation of his own, or is the senator simply confident that an African-American lacks the necessities to be a good legal writer?


Ding! Dong! The Witch Is Dead!

Or at least out of a job.

President Bush on Monday moved to replace Mary Frances Berry, the outspoken chairwoman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission who has argued with every president since Jimmy Carter appointed her to the panel a quarter century ago.

The only problem is that she is refusing to leave, despite the fact that her term is over. The matter was settled in court proceedings over her refusal to seat a Bush appointee to an expired term, arguing that the incumbent was entitled to a full term, not just the remainder of her predecessor's, when appointed to finish the term of a deceased member. She wants to hold the job for six more years, since Clinton delayed her appointment until January 21, 1999, to prevent a GOP successor from filling the spot in his first term. But the vacancy began on December 5, 1998, meaning that Berry's term expired over the weekend.

Also replaced was Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso.

The newly named commissioners are Gerald A. Reynolds, former assistant secretary for the office of civil rights in the Education Department, and attorney Ashley L. Taylor of Richmond, Va. Bush intends to designate Reynolds the commission chairman, succeeding Berry, and to name Abigail Thernstrom, already a commission member, as vice chairperson.

Good job, Mr. President. Now prosecute these miscreants if they attempt to collect a single minute of extra pay.


Sunday, December 05, 2004

French Crisis Solved?

An army of toy soldiers from Toyland have invaded France. The French government has surrendered, ending the crisis reported earlier.

(Hat Tip to David Benzion of Lone Star Times)


When Will France Surrender?

This just in -- a major crisis exists for the French government.

A French soldier angry about being forced to retire holed himself up in an army depot containing 60 tons of explosives and threatened to blow it up Sunday, officials said. Authorities led an evacuation of hundreds of residents from nearby villages.


"He works there, and knows how to set off the explosives which is why we're taking this threat seriously," said army spokesman Col. Patrick Chanliau. "I don't have a list of demands ... but we know he says he cannot stand the mandatory requirement age."
They've already conducted a full-scale retreat away from the perimeter of the base -- French government officials are now debating whether or not French custom requires France to surrender to one of its own soldiers, or must it instead be faced with a foreign invader, such as a troop of Belgian Girl Scouts?


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.