Just When You Thought It Was Safe Again At CU….

Former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill on Tuesday began what he told students would become a series of classes held at the school despite being fired from his position in July.

Churchill elicited applause and handshakes from the majority of the 30 or so CU students and area residents who came to hear his lecture, which he titled “ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State.”

So reports The Daily Camera.

A few observations.  First of all, Big Chief Moronic is still infecting the Colorado university campus, because he’s been able to get anyplace else on the planet from which to spew his bile.  Doesn’t say much about Colorado University does it?

So, just how does one hold classes on campus AFTER one has been fired?  Why does this moron have access to anything on campus?  Why is this moron not being arrested the moment he shows up at the perimeter of the campus? Why were the organizers allowed such access?

Oh, and as for the organizers?… the one at the front of the pack is one Aaron Smith.  Student.  It would seem the faculty at Colorado University are allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

Sounds to me, rather like CU didn’t learn the lesson.

And of course, Churchill is still requiring thuggish tactics;

One of the men watching the door, who did not give his name, became physical with a Camera reporter who tried to enter the room — grabbing his arm and pushing him — prompting a report to police.

Yes, well, that shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody either.  Frankly, this little showpiece, looks like something that Jesse Jackson, or one of that ilk might come up with.

Longtime readers will recall that I referred to Churchill and his supporters as Stalinist.  This situation exemplifies what I was talking about.  And isn’t it interesting, that Rush Limbaugh should be catching flak from the far left for referring to them as Stalinist, just yesterday?  Bob Beckel, it was, I believe, on Fox News yesterday afternoon.

On the other hand, I guess we can take some solace at the idea that there still aren’t many people even on the CU campus that are going to take him seriously.  Last I checked, there’s something like 30,000 people on campus.  Look up at the “again, and you’ll notice that only about 30 of them showed up.

We have had some fun with Tucker Carlson here.    Yet give Tucker his due.  He makes Wesley Clark look like a babbling idiiot,  watch.

Clark’s problem with free speech is limited to the right.    Clark doesn’t mind NPR spouting socialism on the government dole.

Hat tip:   Allah Pundit, Hot Air.

COALITION FORCES DETAIN TERRORIST LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR IED/EFP ATTACKS IN DIYALA

Posted: 03 Oct 2007 05:44 AM CDT

COALITION FORCES DETAIN TERRORIST LEADERS RESPONSIBLE FOR IED/EFP ATTACKS IN DIYALA

COALITION FORCES DETAIN 12 SUSPECTS DURING OPERATIONS TO DISRUPT AL-QAEDA

Posted: 03 Oct 2007 05:27 AM CDT

COALITION FORCES DETAIN 12 SUSPECTS DURING OPERATIONS TO DISRUPT AL-QAEDA

SIGNAL MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON BG FLYNN

Posted: 03 Oct 2007 05:15 AM CDT

SIGNAL MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON BG FLYNN

It might behoove Keith Olbermann to quite declaring rational people with a microphones  as the Worst Person in the World.  Michael Medvid very calmly, shreds Olbermann.

Hat Tip:  Good Lt, Jawa Report.

An interesting video over at Billy’s tonight, Showing the flight capabilities of the F22 Raptor.

And as someone else I read just recently, and frankly I forget where, said; “Too bad Ayn Rand never figured out how to pay for a military”.  And I would add, that frankly I don’t think she ever conceptualize that it would be as necessary to have one as it has proven to be the last 50 years or so.  That’s a subject that perhaps all get into on another occasion.

Meanwhile, let me just say that I am pleased we have such defense equipment available. My guess is, we’re going to need it.

As an extension to our discussion of last evening, as regards Rush Limbaugh and the democrats attempts to slam him, my offer the statement of Fred Thompson:

Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?

The last line, is sheer genius.  Of course, he knows the answer.  So do you and I.  And so do the democrats.  You may recall the last couple of all actions they’ve gone to great lengths to make sure that military votes were not recorded.

While I have the editor open on this particular subject, allow me to pose a question: senator Harry Reid stood on the floor of the senate the other day and told us all that Rush Limbaugh was unpatriotic in his comments.  The fact that to come to that conclusion you have to ignore about half of what he said, aside for the moment, whatever happened to the idea that we weren’t supposed to question anyone’s patriotism? Wasn’t that supposed to be strictly out of bounds?

I reported yesterday on representative David Obey and his bozo plan to raise taxes supposedly to  pay for the war.  Mike Soraghan over at The Hill reports that that idea is, for the moment, dead in the water.

 All told, the Democratic proposal for an “Iraq tax” lasted about four hours. That’s roughly the amount of time from when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) gave life to the idea with his endorsement to when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) strangled it.

“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax,” Pelosi said in a statement issued this afternoon.

First of all, we know from long hard experience that the money from Democrat tax increases never ends up going where they say it will.  That point aside, one must wonder what insight Nancy Pelosi has had to cause her to balk on this one.  Here is a woman whose voting record suggests that she’s never met a tax she didn’t like.

One thing I did fail to mention yesterday (I think) was that it wasn’t David Obey who originally proposed this tax.  It was James McGovern, the Democrat from Massachusetts.   The file this under the category of everything old is new again, and “names that work”.  A McGovern proposing such a tax, after all, has some serious historical precedent.  It also does not bode very well for the Democrats going forward.

Perhaps Nancy saw that? I wonder.

Addendum (Bit)

The comment from McGovern is worth noting. He’s saying It’s unfair to burden future generations with paying for the war.

This is a laughable statement on two counts:

1. It side-steps the entire issue of what future generations would inherit were we to back down form the Islamo-facists as the Democrats have been trying to get us to do.
2. It also ignores that the socialist programs the Democrats have been burdening both us and future generations with, are, unlike the war on terror, are of no benefit whatever to future generations who will have to pay for it all… they are specifically designed to address the immidieate need of Democrats to buy votes with taxpayer dollars, paid direcly to their core voters.  Funny how ‘fairness’ doesn’t come up in that context, huh?

Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays has responded to Dirty Harry Reid.    Mays’ letter (PDF).   Carrie Budoff Brown Crypt, has details:

“While I certainly do not agree with all views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them,” Mays wrote.

He took a respectful tone, saying he regretted that Reid and others might have been offended by Limbaugh. But ultimately, Mays wrote, he didn’t believe Limbaugh’s statements were “intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn’t share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq.” 

Dirty Harry should take his own advice on Iraq and surrender now.    Reid’s talking points from Media Matters will not hold up.

Boortz, yesterday;

 Would someone please slap me the next time I try to bring something like this up on the air? What the hell was I thinking! Look, I was just trying to do a little favor for some of my contemporaries.

What story? Well, evidently someone did some research in Great Britain. Some twenty-something young ladies who had (been fortunate enough to have had) sexual experiences with older men were asked whether they preferred younger or older men in the sack. The answer? Older men! Not just a few years older, but 30 or more years older.

So … idiot that I am … I asked some young ladies with such experiences to call in and either validate or debunk the British study. Yeah … that really worked out well. Like I said, someone slap me the next time I bring this up.

By the way .. this isn’t hard to figure out. Older men are so durned grateful and are eager to prove themselves.

Well, there is that.

Granted that you’re asking questions of perception, here, but it seems to be some scientific control on the questions and answers would produce dramatically different results.   Such couplings don’t often happen, and the reason is the appallingly low success rate.

As to why the Brits got the answers they did; My take is most women who would go back quite so far and call themselves unsuccessful at it, would probably not be quite so willing to admit the failure, or even respond to such questions.   Further, the ones bold enough to go back quite so far would probably be more apt to call themselves a success.  Loudly so if they were in fact one of those rare successes. And I suspect they’d be more willing to gloss over what failures there were.

There is also I suppose a difference in our cultures  where thiers holds older people in a different light than does our own. I wonder if in a scientific poll in each country the numbers would be remarkably different.  I suspect they would be.

My own secondhand experience with such relationships is that they have not proven to be very satisfactory, over time.   Given that we are dealing with a secondhand experience, I can only observe from the outside and say that the younger woman involved was almost invariably, not the brightest bulb in the circuit, shall we say.

From the new WorldPress news feed I’ve just hooked us up with:

NEW YORK -(AP) In an end to a salacious three-week trial, a jury ordered the owners of the New York Knicks to pay $11.6 million (all figures U.S.) to a former team executive who endured crude insults and unwanted advances from coach Isiah Thomas.

The jury of four women and three men found former Raptors executive Thomas and Madison Square Garden sexually harassed Anucha Browne Sanders, but it decided only MSG and chairman James Dolan should pay for harassing and firing Browne Sanders from her $260,000-a-year job out of spite.

So in other words , the jury decided that the one that they say actually performed the act of sexual harassment, doesn’t have to pay a dime one. Is anyone aware of a case where the person or peopel which a jury has decided were the actual perpetrator of a crime, was not forced to pay for that crime?

What circumstances would have led to this kind of decision?

Well they’ve tried everything else to get the US to cut and run. Apparently, the Democrats are now going back to their basics doing the only thing they know how to do: Raise taxes…

WASHINGTON —(Fox) A top Democratic congressman, saying Democrats “have had it with being maneuvered and jerked around” on the war in Iraq, offered a new approach Tuesday to change the course of funding for the ongoing war: A war tax.

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he will not allow a bill to come for debate to provide emergency supplemental funds for the war and suggested Americans should be compelled to pay for it through a “surtax.”

“The president isn’t going to get a supplemental this year. I am not going to report a supplemental out” if it simply is a request for funds and not a change in direction for troops in Iraq,” Obey said.

Obey suggested he is flexible as to what the change in policy proposes “so long as it represents real change and not camouflage.”

Yes sirreee Bob, there goes a real American.  (Cough, hack wheeze) Defund troops in the field, and threaten a tax hike. I suppose it makes sense if you consider that the Democrats only know how to raise taxes.  It’s the only thing they’ve been successful at.

Whatever happened to the representative David Obey who understood that this kind of nonsense draws really serious negative polling numbers, and was worried enough about it, a short time ago, to be screaming at the brainless MoveOn nutjobs, calling them liberal idiots?  What happened to the man’s spine, I wonder? I guess MoveOn got to him. Perhaps his constituents ought to override MoveOn by getting to him next?

Others blogging:  Wake up America, michellemalkin.com,  QandO  Flopping Aces, Riehl World View

I see Boortz has jumed into line with my comments of the other day regarding Limbaugh and Media Matters:

 Media Myrmidons started this attack on Limbaugh by writing that Rush called “service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq ‘phony soldiers.'” Media Myrdions is lying .. and they know they’re lying. They also know that they can depend on the mainstream media in this country to not only ignore their distortion, but to actually work to support and spread it.

This whole mess starts with a clown by the name of Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth became very popular with the media earlier this year when he started telling stories about all of the hideous crimes he saw our soldiers commit while he was serving in Afghanistan and Iraq as an Army ranger. Oh, how the leftist media sopped it up. The only problem was, Macbeth was lying.

…

I’ve read the transcripts; the complete transcripts, and it is crystal clear that when Limbaugh made his “phony soldiers” reference it was directed at Jesse Macbeth and his ilk, people who falsely claimed to serve in the Middle East and lied about the actions of our troops there. It’s an apt description, I would say, since U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan himself referred to Macbeth and the other’s who joined him in his efforts as “phony war heroes.”

We know exactly what’s going on here. It’s no mystery. Rush Limbaugh is perhaps the biggest single obstacle in the way of Hillary Clinton or some other member of the MoveOn Democrat Party becoming our next president. Media Matters is a creation of Hillary Clinton and her cabal. There’s no denying this, Hillary has openly admitted her role in creating this organization. As the election season continues you can expect Media Myrmidons to increase their attacks, and as they do so their attacks on Conservative talk radio will sound more and more desperate. And while Media Myrmidons keeps up the attack, Hillary’s dog washers – Harry Reid, for example – will keep barking from the sidelines.

Welcome to the party, Neal.   And, well put.

Ray Robison over at the American Thinker has posted an encouraging report, that you will most likely not see in the mainstream media for another six months:

There are signs that the global Islamic jihad movement is splitting apart, in what would be a tremendous achievement for American strategy. The center of the action is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the very territory which is thought to harbor Usama, and from which Al Qaeda was able to launch 9/11. Capitalizing on existing splits, a trap was set and closed, and the benefits have only begun to be evident.

There were already signs of a split, but recent events strengthen that trend. In March and again in May of this year I reviewed relevant South Asian media reporting to predict that the global Islamic jihad movement was cracking up. That theory focused on a split between the leadership of al Qaeda and the jihad groups that secure them in Pakistan such as the Taliban.

Ray gets into an extraordinarily deep analysis which I think you will find interesting, and encouraging.

AFGHAN, COALITION FORCES KILL 20 MILITANTS IN HELMAND PROVINCE

Posted: 01 Oct 2007 09:22 AM CDT

AFGHAN, COALITION FORCES KILL 20 MILITANTS IN HELMAND PROVINCE

COALITION FORCES DISRUPT AL-QAEDA LEADERSHIP: SEVEN KILLED, 11 DETAINED

Posted: 01 Oct 2007 09:17 AM CDT

COALITION FORCES DISRUPT AL-QAEDA LEADERSHIP: SEVEN KILLED, 11 DETAINED

Recent events involving Republican candidates for president as well as the cumulative effect of hypocrisy, corruption, intolerance, and the stupidity over immigration have led me to the only logical conclusion possible.At the moment, I am a man without a party.I sure as hell am not a Republican – not after the last fortnight’s disgraceful exhibition by GOP presidential hopefuls who first, pissed off Hispanics by ditching the Univision debate, then made it a twofer by having the top tier candidates blowing off Tavis Smiley and the so-called “All American Presidential Forum” The fact that this “all american” debate forgot to put an American flag someplace where it might be visible doesn’t obviate the insult done to the organizers of the debates much less the viewers.And then to top off GOP idiocy for September, you have war hero John McCain saying first that he couldn’t support a Muslim for President and then clarifying that remark a little later by basically saying, “Well, I can support a Muslim as long as we can be sure of their loyalty to the United States.”How big of you, John. All you have to do is substitute “Catholic” for “Muslim” and you have exactly the right attitude – for the election of 1928. That’s when people wondered whether Catholic Al Smith would be more loyal to the Vatican or to the US Constitution.

And don’t even get me started on Larry Craig.

So intones Rick Moran of the Right Wing Nut House. 

I’m afraid I would have to disagree with you on this one, too, Rick.

Even in your own piece, you say:

I wholeheartedly reject the notion that conservatives need to pander to any racial or ethnic group.

… yet, that is precisely what those two venues are all about.

Frankly, Univision and Tavis Smiley are by definition, ticked off at anything not in liberal lockstep.  Republicans showing up or not,showing up, doesn’t change that.  All it does is keep Republican candidates from being targets at the carnival shooting gallery, when they’re not kissing liberal butt in the name of ‘diversity’. Nobody but far left democrats has anything to gain by going into either venue.

This is not a matter of being afraid of being asked the tough questions, rather it is the recognition that such venues are going to provide a stacked deck , invariably.  Such venues in general, and those two in particular, have a long track history as regards whacko Liberal politics.  This is made completely obvious by the little flap over the flag as you mentioned.  They are either debating as Americans, or they’re debating as internationalist anarchists. The latter has no place in our electoral system.  I’m just as glad they didn’t show up… it shows good judgment, in my opinion.

Your comments about McCain, are well taken; then again, we’ve been saying for some time John McCain is a classic case of RINO. always has been. With the exception of issues of defense, he has never once stood on Republican principles, rather he has sought to be the “maverick”. His numbers have been tanking, not because he’s unwilling to kiss Liberal backside, but because he’s too willing to do that.

And I wouldn’t be too discouraged about Larry Craig.  There’s always going to be bad apples in the barrel; that’s the nature of politics.  What is encouraging about that is the number of Republicans who have stood up for principle and gone to great lengths to get him to leave office. I suppose the most direct comparison would be to “Cold cash” Johnson, and the idea that the Democrats are making no moves whatsoever to have him removed from office. There’s a very thick, bright line drawn between the two philosophies thereby.  As a Republican, I don’t see that as discouraging.

Obviously not all Christians are as I describe so don’t be emailing me telling me how wrong I am. But there is a sizable, vocal minority – probably close to 15% of the party – that has skewed GOP issues away from the everyday concerns of the American people and toward these religious crusades against abortion, gay marriage, and making America “moral” whatever that means. The first thing the American people think of today when they hear the word “Republican” is either “anti-abortion” or “anti-gay marriage.” To have those issues identifying the party is again, stupid and self-defeating.

Not really.  I would consider it more of a recognition that a lot of the other problems that you you mention, have to do with an abandonment of social values which this country was founded upon.  You suggest that the Republican party is not standing on principle.  I respond by suggesting that your complaint is in this instance is that they’re doing precisely that.  It’s just you don’t agree with that principle involved.

They will eventually alienate so many people that they won’t be much of a political party at all.

Here’s the thing; standing on principle by definition alienates people.  If you’re going to fly the flag of principle, you’d better get used to the idea.