A Retrospective on Skymutt's diary.

That seems like too many guests to be regular lurkers... wonder what's going on.

Over at Redstate, Erick is upset because "the left" is calling into question General Petraeus's bronze star and whether he really has earned all the medals he wears.

...

I got nothin.

Here's a clip put together showing how Fox TV censored Sally Fields Emmy speech because she said "god damned". The the clip goes on to show multiple times when Fox broadcast their people saying "god damned".

Rupert Murdoch.....you have no soul to sell the devil. What's he gonna do when St. Peter says he isn't welcome and Lucifer says he has nothing to offer him. Guess he'll be condemned to walk the earth for eternity...

One of the greatest threats to our Constitution is the International Association of Chiefs of Police who have for decades been anti-gun and actively pursuing policies which would leave innocent victims helpless in the face of the criminal attacks, while at the same time acknowledging that they are helpless to protect them.

Despite the rise on concealed carry laws across the nation and the resulting plummet in the violent crime rates, these officials continue to do everything that they can to make victims helpless.

The reality is that what they are calling assault weapons (as opposed to what the military actually calls assault weapons), account for a miniscule percentage of gun deaths in this country and yet they portray them as the weapons of choice among criminals.

We must stand up against these blatant attacks on our personal freedoms, and not just any personal freedoms the one that guarantees all of the others!

IACP Calls For Gun Ban, Again

The International Association of Chiefs of Police
has once again called for a gun ban. This is nothing new, the IACP has
long been hostile to gun owners` rights.

Read About It:
Miami Herald

Michelle Malkin has a nice summary of the latest:

The Democrats’ bundles of straw; Update: Hsu facing charges in NY:

The Wall Street Journal
continues to dig into Democrat funny money. They identify a Clinton
donor who says her political contribution was reimbursed by her
husband’s boss, a fund-raising bundler for the candidate:

When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate
fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton
donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton’s
presidential campaign.

But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were
reimbursed by her husband’s boss for the donations. “It wasn’t personal
money. It was all corporate money,” Mrs. Layton said outside her home
here. “I don’t even like Hillary. I’m a Republican.”

The boss is William Danielczyk, founder of a Washington-area
private-equity firm and a major fund-raising “bundler” for Mrs.
Clinton. Mrs. Layton’s gift was one of more than a dozen donations that
night from people with Republican ties or no history of political
giving. Mr. Danielczyk and his family, employees and friends donated a
total of $120,000 to Mrs. Clinton in the days around the fund-raiser.

In an interview, Mr. Danielczyk said he “did not and would not”
reimburse employees or others for their political donations. Such
reimbursement would be illegal. Mr. Danielczyk said he was a co-host
for the event at Mrs. Clinton’s home. “Everybody was asked to
contribute,” he said, “some said yes and some said no.” He added, “No
arm was twisted.”

Geeze, what's with these Democrats and fund raising? Why aren't these people being investigated for fund raising violations? I mean giving money to other people to donate to a candidate that YOU choose is just another way of circumventing the donation limitations. Can't the Democrats operate successfully within the constraints of the law?

And what types of favors are all these bundled donations buying?  You know that they aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, right? 

H/T to Erick @ RS

Senate condemns 'General Betray Us' ad :

The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal.

The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times last week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill. The ad was headlined: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Reaction:

Cold water. 72-25 :

The simple fact is that we were just stomped on and thrown under the bus. Over 20 Democrats agreed with a unified republican caucus that you and I and 3.2 million MoveOn members are dirty scumbags for questioning a sock-puppet of a general that spouted lie after propagandistic lie. Repeating: our friends just punched us in the gut and kicked us in the nuts.

No, what it shows is how mainstream you are to the Dem establishment. Which is to say they view you as radicals they can throw bones to.

Congressman Dick Cheney voted against a resolution calling for a release of Nelson Mandella from prison in South Africa .(via Atrios)

"Yet Republican vice presidential candidate Cheney still defends his vote, saying on ABC's ``This Week'' that ``the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization. . . . I don't have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.'' What, then, does this tell us about what information Cheney considers before he takes a decision? And what the long-term consequences are likely to be, and on whom? By no means were Mandela or the ANC universally viewed as ``terrorists,'' evidenced by the fact that the vote on the resolution was 245-177 in favor, but still shy of the two-thirds needed to override President Ronald Reagan's veto."

Hey notice that....back in the 80's it took 2/3 Congress to over ride. Now you just need 41 Senators to shoot down a good bill supported by the majority.