The constitution really is meaningless to republican politicians...

A Florida State Senator is moving to give the police the power to pull certain individuals over without probable cause.

Senator from New Port Richey proposes pink DUI plates

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) -- A Republican senator wants a law to require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence.

Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the plate to read "DUI."

"Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice."

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

Look, I'm not condoning drinking and driving. But the reality is that normal, everyday people can and have made this mistake once in their lives. What this state senator wants is to remove the protection of the fourth amendment from those who have made a mistake.

I know this hasn't passed. I know that it probably won't pass. Still, the idea that this would even be proposed in seriousness bewilders me.

These people are doing their damnedest to destroy our country. Luckily for us, it looks as if they are failing.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

The constitution really is meaningless to republican politicians...

A Florida State Senator is moving to give the police the power to pull certain individuals over without probable cause.

Senator from New Port Richey proposes pink DUI plates

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) -- A Republican senator wants a law to require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence.

Sen. Mike Fasano, of New Port Richey, filed a bill earlier this month that requires the first three characters on the plate to read "DUI."

"Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice."

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

Look, I'm not condoning drinking and driving. But the reality is that normal, everyday people can and have made this mistake once in their lives. What this state senator wants is to remove the protection of the fourth amendment from those who have made a mistake.

I know this hasn't passed. I know that it probably won't pass. Still, the idea that this would even be proposed in seriousness bewilders me.

These people are doing their damnedest to destroy our country. Luckily for us, it looks as if they are failing.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Please oh please oh please oh please oh please...

Please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please!

Whom must I pay off in order to be included on Bill O'Reilly's official enemies list?

Fairly typical comments from O’Reilly. But he added an unusual twist. O’Reilly promised to publish the names of everyone who supported these “internet smear sites” on his website:

I’m glad the smear sites made a big deal out of it. Now we can all know who was with the anti-military internet crowd. We’ll post the names of all who support the smear merchants on billoreilly.com. So check with us.

It’s unclear where O’Reilly would find such a list. But since he has labeled everyone who supports websites like MediaMatters.org and ThinkProgress.org as “anti-military” it seems to be an effort to intimidate and shame our readers.

Well, here's to dreaming.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Please oh please oh please oh please oh please...

Please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please!

Whom must I pay off in order to be included on Bill O'Reilly's official enemies list?

Fairly typical comments from O’Reilly. But he added an unusual twist. O’Reilly promised to publish the names of everyone who supported these “internet smear sites” on his website:

I’m glad the smear sites made a big deal out of it. Now we can all know who was with the anti-military internet crowd. We’ll post the names of all who support the smear merchants on billoreilly.com. So check with us.

It’s unclear where O’Reilly would find such a list. But since he has labeled everyone who supports websites like MediaMatters.org and ThinkProgress.org as “anti-military” it seems to be an effort to intimidate and shame our readers.

Well, here's to dreaming.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Uh, oh...

Pat Buchanan is pissed:

Indeed, since 9/11, the party has indulged in a willful self-delusion that it has become America’s Party. The Bush triumph in 2004, talking heads brayed, settled the matter: Red State America has triumphed over Blue State America. The future belongs to us.

This was always hyperbole. Where Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan rolled up 49-state landslides in re-election runs, Bush won 31 states, losing every state north of the Potomac and east of Ohio, two of the three great industrial states of the Midwest, Michigan and Illinois, and he was skunked on the Pacific rim. Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.

[...]

Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us, and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.

Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed is filling up.

True to the neoconservative creed, Bush launched a global crusade for democracy that is now bringing ever closer to power Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, and Shia fundamentalists in Baghdad and Basra.

Democratic imperialism is still imperialism. To Arab and Islamic peoples, whether the Crusaders come in the name of God or in the name of democracy, they are still Crusaders.

When Ronald Reagan went home to California, his heirs said, “Goodbye to all that,” and embraced Big Government conservatism, then neoconservatism. If they do not find their way home soon, to the principles of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan, they will perish in the wilderness into which they have led us all.

The President is being attacked from the right as well as the left. The only people still supporting the President are the type of people so blindly loyal that they frighten the rest of the country. In times past, these type of people have formed the core of fascist regimes centered on a cult of personality of a charismatic leader.

Luckily for us, the United States of America is recognizing the road that we find ourselves on, and altering our path that leads to the self destruction of nations.

This is what make America great. We have a self healing system, partly by design and partly by happy accident, and I think God ever day that this is the case.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Uh, oh...

Pat Buchanan is pissed:

Indeed, since 9/11, the party has indulged in a willful self-delusion that it has become America’s Party. The Bush triumph in 2004, talking heads brayed, settled the matter: Red State America has triumphed over Blue State America. The future belongs to us.

This was always hyperbole. Where Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan rolled up 49-state landslides in re-election runs, Bush won 31 states, losing every state north of the Potomac and east of Ohio, two of the three great industrial states of the Midwest, Michigan and Illinois, and he was skunked on the Pacific rim. Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.

[...]

Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us, and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.

Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed is filling up.

True to the neoconservative creed, Bush launched a global crusade for democracy that is now bringing ever closer to power Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, and Shia fundamentalists in Baghdad and Basra.

Democratic imperialism is still imperialism. To Arab and Islamic peoples, whether the Crusaders come in the name of God or in the name of democracy, they are still Crusaders.

When Ronald Reagan went home to California, his heirs said, “Goodbye to all that,” and embraced Big Government conservatism, then neoconservatism. If they do not find their way home soon, to the principles of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan, they will perish in the wilderness into which they have led us all.

The President is being attacked from the right as well as the left. The only people still supporting the President are the type of people so blindly loyal that they frighten the rest of the country. In times past, these type of people have formed the core of fascist regimes centered on a cult of personality of a charismatic leader.

Luckily for us, the United States of America is recognizing the road that we find ourselves on, and altering our path that leads to the self destruction of nations.

This is what make America great. We have a self healing system, partly by design and partly by happy accident, and I think God ever day that this is the case.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

God Bless Dan Froomkin...

From Froomkin's Monday White House Briefing column from WashingtonPost.com:

President Bush on Friday launched his third presidential campaign -- this one to salvage his reputation, and what's left of his second term.

His goal this time is not to win an election; it's to gain back the public trust.

Amid all the tumbling poll numbers of late, Bush's biggest problem is this: A sizeable majority of Americans -- 55 percent according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll -- believe that he intentionally misled the American public in making his case for war in Iraq.

So Bush's speechwriters on Veteran's Day added a few fiery paragraphs to his standard war-on-terror address.

Here's the text : "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs," Bush said.

"[M]ore than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he noted.

And, he concluded: "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

But Bush's argument is deeply flawed. Far from being baseless, the charge that he intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence. And the longer Bush goes without refuting that evidence in detail, the more persuasive it becomes.

And his most prized talking point -- that many Democrats agreed with him at the time -- is problematic. Many of those Democrats did so because they believed the information the president gave them. Now they are coming to the conclusion that they shouldn't have.

Like other Bush campaigns, this one will inevitably feature the ceaseless repetition of key sound bytes -- the hope being that they will be carried, largely unchallenged, by the media -- and virulent attacks by the White House on those who dare to disagree, even going so far as to question their patriotism.

The tide has turned. The President is never going to convince the majority of Americans that the case against for the war in Iraq was legit. That boat has sailed. I agree with Froomkin. The longer the President goes without refuting that evidence in detail the more persuasive it becomes.

This is what happens when the country elects a stuttering wonder. I know Al Gore was boring, but the country is showing it's collective buyer's remorse. It's about time.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

God Bless Dan Froomkin...

From Froomkin's Monday White House Briefing column from WashingtonPost.com:

President Bush on Friday launched his third presidential campaign -- this one to salvage his reputation, and what's left of his second term.

His goal this time is not to win an election; it's to gain back the public trust.

Amid all the tumbling poll numbers of late, Bush's biggest problem is this: A sizeable majority of Americans -- 55 percent according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll -- believe that he intentionally misled the American public in making his case for war in Iraq.

So Bush's speechwriters on Veteran's Day added a few fiery paragraphs to his standard war-on-terror address.

Here's the text : "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs," Bush said.

"[M]ore than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he noted.

And, he concluded: "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

But Bush's argument is deeply flawed. Far from being baseless, the charge that he intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence. And the longer Bush goes without refuting that evidence in detail, the more persuasive it becomes.

And his most prized talking point -- that many Democrats agreed with him at the time -- is problematic. Many of those Democrats did so because they believed the information the president gave them. Now they are coming to the conclusion that they shouldn't have.

Like other Bush campaigns, this one will inevitably feature the ceaseless repetition of key sound bytes -- the hope being that they will be carried, largely unchallenged, by the media -- and virulent attacks by the White House on those who dare to disagree, even going so far as to question their patriotism.

The tide has turned. The President is never going to convince the majority of Americans that the case against for the war in Iraq was legit. That boat has sailed. I agree with Froomkin. The longer the President goes without refuting that evidence in detail the more persuasive it becomes.

This is what happens when the country elects a stuttering wonder. I know Al Gore was boring, but the country is showing it's collective buyer's remorse. It's about time.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

For those interested in Maryland politics...

If you do happen to be interested or versed in Maryland politics, then you have probably heard the infamous "Oreo Story" that Ehrlich and Steele keep pimping to the media.

Well, it turns out that it probably didn't happen.

Click here to see AmericaBlog's rundown of the lies.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

For those interested in Maryland politics...

If you do happen to be interested or versed in Maryland politics, then you have probably heard the infamous "Oreo Story" that Ehrlich and Steele keep pimping to the media.

Well, it turns out that it probably didn't happen.

Click here to see AmericaBlog's rundown of the lies.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

The essence of the problem...

Taken Wholesale from Andrew Sullivan:

NEWSPEAK AT THE WHITE HOUSE: This morning's NYT has an insightful op-ed on how the interrogation techniques now used by the U.S. were actually first developed by the Communist interrogators of the Soviet-controlled world. They were designed not to get actionable intelligence but to destroy a person's soul and enforce ideological conformity. In this "Animal Farm" moment, where the United States has literally adopted the immorality of its erstwhile enemy, it's hard to improve on this email:

The audacity of what the WSJ and the White House are trying to do is staggering. What they are attempting to do is one of the most profound moral outrages that Orwell (and myself) ascribed to the left, which is simply redefining a word and insisting on that redefinition in the political discourse, until that word has lost its original primary function. The academic establishment has gone a long way in changing the word "tolerance" to have overtones of being sympathetic to a thing, whereas it used to have a meaning similar to this: "In the use of torture, many people have a threshold of pain beyond which they cannot tolerate it and will give in to the demands of their captors." I will not be a part of this debate anymore, because anybody with an 8th grade education knows exactly what both "torture" and "tolerate" mean here. The president and his allies are (characteristically) pulling one out of the Orwellian left playbook to redefine the word into irrelevance. In other words, if "torture" means "organ failure" or "death" as the White House has argued (and let's open our eyes and notice that organ failure is a corrolary to death without immediate, radical medical treatment, e.g. a liver transplant or permanent dialysis), then the above statement becomes nearly nonsense, because dead people are by definition unable to give in to the demands of their captors. A good way to settle a dispute among rational parties is to find an impartial, mutually respected source to arbitrate. I often find that people go around spilling a lot of words in a discussion without resolution in cases where consulting the definitions of words provides so much clarity that people are rendered without argument. From the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary," torture:

A noun 1. Originally, (a disorder characterized by) contortion, distortion, or twisting. Later, (the infliction of) severe physical or mental suffering; anguish, agony, torment. b transf. A cause of severe pain or anguish. 2. The infliction of severe bodily pain as a punishment or as a means of interrogation or persuasion; a form or instance of this. b transf. An instrument or means of torture. B verb trans. 1. Subject to torture as a punishment or as a means of interrogation or persuasion. 2. Inflict severe mental or physical suffering on; cause anguish in; torment. Also, puzzle or perplex greatly. 3. figuratively, to force violently out of the original state or form; twist, distort; pervert. Also followed by /into/. 4. extract by torture.

Torture is defined purely in terms of inflicted suffering. These people who want to argue the point in the face of the definition are not engaging in a rational discussion, and should be treated as such. I will point out that the one sense of torture here that is not referring to concrete torture describes their tactics. They are, in fact, attempting verb form number 3 of torture on the word torture. They are trying to twist, distort and pervert the word out of its agreed definition.
Yes, they are. And they are doing so because what they have done and permitted to be done is so outrageous to civilized norms that they have no option but to destroy the very language that we use. We do not have to be a party to this. We have to expose it for what it is.

The essence of the problem...

Taken Wholesale from Andrew Sullivan:

NEWSPEAK AT THE WHITE HOUSE: This morning's NYT has an insightful op-ed on how the interrogation techniques now used by the U.S. were actually first developed by the Communist interrogators of the Soviet-controlled world. They were designed not to get actionable intelligence but to destroy a person's soul and enforce ideological conformity. In this "Animal Farm" moment, where the United States has literally adopted the immorality of its erstwhile enemy, it's hard to improve on this email:

The audacity of what the WSJ and the White House are trying to do is staggering. What they are attempting to do is one of the most profound moral outrages that Orwell (and myself) ascribed to the left, which is simply redefining a word and insisting on that redefinition in the political discourse, until that word has lost its original primary function. The academic establishment has gone a long way in changing the word "tolerance" to have overtones of being sympathetic to a thing, whereas it used to have a meaning similar to this: "In the use of torture, many people have a threshold of pain beyond which they cannot tolerate it and will give in to the demands of their captors." I will not be a part of this debate anymore, because anybody with an 8th grade education knows exactly what both "torture" and "tolerate" mean here. The president and his allies are (characteristically) pulling one out of the Orwellian left playbook to redefine the word into irrelevance. In other words, if "torture" means "organ failure" or "death" as the White House has argued (and let's open our eyes and notice that organ failure is a corrolary to death without immediate, radical medical treatment, e.g. a liver transplant or permanent dialysis), then the above statement becomes nearly nonsense, because dead people are by definition unable to give in to the demands of their captors. A good way to settle a dispute among rational parties is to find an impartial, mutually respected source to arbitrate. I often find that people go around spilling a lot of words in a discussion without resolution in cases where consulting the definitions of words provides so much clarity that people are rendered without argument. From the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary," torture:

A noun 1. Originally, (a disorder characterized by) contortion, distortion, or twisting. Later, (the infliction of) severe physical or mental suffering; anguish, agony, torment. b transf. A cause of severe pain or anguish. 2. The infliction of severe bodily pain as a punishment or as a means of interrogation or persuasion; a form or instance of this. b transf. An instrument or means of torture. B verb trans. 1. Subject to torture as a punishment or as a means of interrogation or persuasion. 2. Inflict severe mental or physical suffering on; cause anguish in; torment. Also, puzzle or perplex greatly. 3. figuratively, to force violently out of the original state or form; twist, distort; pervert. Also followed by /into/. 4. extract by torture.

Torture is defined purely in terms of inflicted suffering. These people who want to argue the point in the face of the definition are not engaging in a rational discussion, and should be treated as such. I will point out that the one sense of torture here that is not referring to concrete torture describes their tactics. They are, in fact, attempting verb form number 3 of torture on the word torture. They are trying to twist, distort and pervert the word out of its agreed definition.
Yes, they are. And they are doing so because what they have done and permitted to be done is so outrageous to civilized norms that they have no option but to destroy the very language that we use. We do not have to be a party to this. We have to expose it for what it is.

When Piety Attacks...

Ok, this is insane:

Man Jumped From Truck Following Argument
November 12th, 2005 @ 9:21pm

(KSL News) Police now say an argument caused a 21-year-old man to jump from a moving truck in South Jordan.

Tyler Poulson was riding with his brothers last night when he became offended by one of them using profanity. Poulson, who recently returned from an LDS mission, threatened to get out of the truck if he continued.

One of the men, not thinking he would, told Poulson to.

Earlier police said the car was going about 35 miles an hour when Poulson opened the door and jumped. He was pronounced dead on scene.

Uh, I don't even know what else to say here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

When Piety Attacks...

Ok, this is insane:

Man Jumped From Truck Following Argument
November 12th, 2005 @ 9:21pm

(KSL News) Police now say an argument caused a 21-year-old man to jump from a moving truck in South Jordan.

Tyler Poulson was riding with his brothers last night when he became offended by one of them using profanity. Poulson, who recently returned from an LDS mission, threatened to get out of the truck if he continued.

One of the men, not thinking he would, told Poulson to.

Earlier police said the car was going about 35 miles an hour when Poulson opened the door and jumped. He was pronounced dead on scene.

Uh, I don't even know what else to say here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Dear San Francisco...

From the November 8 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

Many people, myself included have made a point of saying that Bill O'Reilly had really outdone himself this time. I called him an asshole.

It seems enough people have voiced this opinion that O'Reilly felt the need to respond:

I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace.

Yes. Bill O'Reilly is an ASSHOLE.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Dear San Francisco...

From the November 8 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

Many people, myself included have made a point of saying that Bill O'Reilly had really outdone himself this time. I called him an asshole.

It seems enough people have voiced this opinion that O'Reilly felt the need to respond:

I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace.

Yes. Bill O'Reilly is an ASSHOLE.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Good Question...

You Are a Little Scary

You've got a nice edge to you. Use it.

How Scary Are You?

Good Question...

You Are a Little Scary

You've got a nice edge to you. Use it.

How Scary Are You?

Billy Boy...

Bil O'Reilly speaks:

"...If al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead,"

What an asshole.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Billy Boy...

Bil O'Reilly speaks:

"...If al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead,"

What an asshole.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Bush's Iraq Speech...

He offered nothing new. He's given us nothing to give us any more hope. He offered more of the same.

Worst. President. Evah.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Bush's Iraq Speech...

He offered nothing new. He's given us nothing to give us any more hope. He offered more of the same.

Worst. President. Evah.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Christianity Today!

Pat Robertson speaks:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

[...]

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

Pat Robertson. Why does anyone still take this fool seriously?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Christianity Today!

Pat Robertson speaks:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

[...]

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

Pat Robertson. Why does anyone still take this fool seriously?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Jack Abramoff Charging Admission to Meet President Bush...

Raw Story has this tease:

Thursday's New York Times will feature a front page story on Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist linked to former House GOP leader DeLay, RAW STORY has learned.

Excerpts from the forthcoming story:

The lobbyist Jack Abramoff asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of a small West African nation to arrange a meeting with President Bush and directed his fees to a Maryland company now under federal scrutiny, according to newly disclosed documents.

The African leader, President Omar Bongo of Gabon, met with Bush in the Oval Office on May 26, 2004, 10 months after Abramoff made the offer. There has been no evidence in the public record that the lobbyist had any role in organizing the meeting or that he received any money or had a signed contract with Gabon.

White House and State Department officials described Bush's meeting with Bongo as routine. Gabon is regularly accused by the United States of human rights abuses.

Can you believe how crooked these people are? I mean, I am a died in the wool, partisan, left-wing lunatic, but these people continue to amaze me. Who the hell is Jack Abramoff to charge $9,000,000 to meet the President?

Isn't this the State Department's job, and don't we already fund the State Department be our liaison to foreign heads of state?

It's looking like everyone Republican in Washington is going to end up in prison at this rate.

-The Oklahoma Hippy