Sunday, October 28, 2007

Cutting Off Their Noses ...

Can the people running the Roanoke Times be any more boneheaded? Are they infected with the same disease that plagues their editorial boardroom? Do they operate in a vacuum, totally devoid of interaction with the community within which they operate?

A news flash from the NRA:

A "Pillar" Of The First Amendment Discriminates Against The Second

Friday, October 26, 2007

Earlier this year, Virginia’s Roanoke Times newspaper came under intense scrutiny and near-universal condemnation after its editors made the irresponsible and dangerous choice to post a searchable database of Virginia’s Right-to-Carry permit holders on its website. In doing so, the paper provided anyone with access to the internet (including criminals) the name, home address, and permit issuance and expiration date of more than 135,000 Virginia permit holders.

Thankfully, after hearing from outraged, law-abiding gun owners and non-gun owners alike, the paper prudently decided to remove the database from its website and not repost it, citing a “concern for public safety.”

Now, after igniting and enduring that firestorm of criticism, the Roanoke Times is once again up to its anti-gun antics.

Local gun show promoter “Showmasters” recently contacted the paper to advertise for its upcoming Roanoke Valley Gun Show and was told in no uncertain terms that the Roanoke Times would no longer accept advertising for gun shows. Specifically, Mary Whelchel, the Retail Advertising Manager for the paper said in an e-mail to Annette Elliott of Showmasters, “The Roanoke Times has amended their policy after the Virginia Tech massacre. It was initiated in the advertising department to be more in line with our editorial stance [emphasis added] and I think you know what that is. I have nothing good to tell you. We will no longer accept advertising from The Roanoke Valley Gun Show.” In a subsequent e-mail, Welchel qualified the paper’s stance, saying “To restate our policy, we only accept advertising for firearms and accessories from licensed dealers [emphasis added].”

In the first place, the horrible murders at Virginia Tech had nothing to do with gun shows whatsoever. Further, by mentioning the tragedy, and worse, using it for justification for their illogical decision, the paper exposes its apparent intent to exploit and sensationalize the murders to further its own internal anti-gun agenda. What’s more, Welchel plainly states the outrageous admission that the paper’s editorial stance dictates what’s allowed in the paper! How’s that for unbiased?

Secondly, the paper’s decision to accept advertising for firearms and accessories only from licensed dealers is blatantly discriminatory. If an auto show were coming to town, would the Roanoke Times demand the licenses of every car dealer and individual vendor displaying at the show before the editorial department would grant permission to advertise the event in its paper? Of course not. That would be an arbitrary and absurd reaction. And that’s the point.

Members and pro-gun citizens should contact the Roanoke Times to express their outrage over the paper’s blatant, ongoing anti-gun stance.

You can reach the paper at:; or Mary Whelchel (Retail Advertising Manager) by e-mail at, or by phone at (540) 981-3378.

You can cancel your subscription by calling (540) 981-3211, or (800) 346-1234.

So the rabidly liberal (and not all that bright) editorial staff of the Roanoke Times is now leading the publisher around by the nose?

I wonder how the parent company, Landmark Communications, feels about this?

I think some answers to a few questions are in order.

Those 'Code Words' Raise Their Ugly Heads

I've always gotten a chuckle out of liberals who take what conservatives say and translate the words into "what they really mean." You'll sometimes see those words referred to as "code words." Asking that America truly become a color-blind society really means we want blacks lynched, and such.

Despite the fact that we couldn't make our thoughts any more clear, more well-defined, more understandable, these guys take our declarative sentences and tell you what we meant by that, really.

Take for example, this guy who writes in today's New York Times:
What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand?
By Lawrence Downes

America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.

Since the word modifies not the crime but the whole person, it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. (link)

All that from the fact that we consider those who entered our country illegally to be illegals.

They know what we really mean by that, you see. They always know.

That code word thing. In this case, the espousal of a belief that these undocumented aliens are wandering our streets illegally is code exposing our racial and ethnic hatred.

That's funny.

If we meant it, do you honestly think we'd avoid shouting it from the rooftops?

What part of illegal don't you understand, genius?

A Reason To Cheer Global Warming

Warming Revives Flora and Fauna in Greenland

Two Stories, One Message

This is rather revealing about the mindset that drives the bias at the New York Times. The message?

Liberal religious leaders who are active politically are righteous. Conservative religious leaders who are active politically have strayed.

Read the following two articles in today's paper.

"Evangelical Crackup" is about Pastor Terry Fox of Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church, who veered too far from the Gospel and was forced to leave the pulpit. His crime? He was too politically active. Too Republican.

Then go to "Death Penalty Tests a Church as It Mourns" about a very liberal congregation in a trendy part of Connecticut. Here you'll learn that "[t]he United Methodist Church here is the kind of politically active place where parishioners take to the pulpit to discuss poverty in El Salvador and refugees living in Meriden," and where the pastor is anguishing over whether he should temporarily cease speaking out against the death penalty out of deference toward a family of parishioners who were murdered in cold blood by a pair of sociopaths. Oh the despair. Oh the heroism.

Interesting twists on news. A good lesson to learn. Next time you pick up this rag ...

Score One For Lantos

How do you get Europeans riled up? Throw a little truth at them. As did Representative Tom Lantos (D-Los Angeles) the other day. And oh how it stings:
Dutch lawmakers offended by US lawmaker
By Desmond Butler, Associated Press Writer

Washington - Dutch lawmakers who recently visited the Guantanamo Bay military prison said they were offended by a testy exchange in Washington with a senior congressional Democrat.

The lawmakers said that Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told them that "Europe was not as outraged by Auschwitz as by Guantanamo Bay."

Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, was responding to arguments that the United States should shut down the prison, located on a U.S. naval base in Cuba, the lawmakers said. Mariko Peters, a member of the Dutch Green Party, who began the exchange with Lantos, said she took notes of the remarks.

Before the Guantanamo exchange, the lawmakers had discussed a debate in the Netherlands about whether the country should maintain its 1,600 troops serving in NATO's Afghanistan operations.

"You have to help us, because if it was not for us you would now be a province of Nazi Germany," Lantos said, according to the Dutch lawmakers.

"The comments killed the debate," said Harry van Bommel, a member of the Socialist Party. "It was insulting and counterproductive." (link)
Yeah. Insulting. Lantos didn't get the memo. He was supposed to kiss this guy's ass. That's what American foreign policy, as it relates to the Europeans, is all about.

I rarely agree with Tom Lantos. But in this instance, hat's off to you, dude.

So We're Going To Start Apologizing?

Taking advice from a man whose crowning foreign policy achievement was to allow Iranian terrorists to mock him and our country for well over a year while holding and torturing American hostages, and from another who was so committed to his mission that he was having one of his underage female employees performing oral sex on him while he was talking on the phone to a Congressman about going to war, doesn't seem to me to be all that productive. Or smart.

But then, Condi knows best:
Rice taps Clinton, Carter for Middle East advice

Washington (Reuters) - Anxious not to repeat mistakes of past Middle East peace-making, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has turned to former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for tips ahead of her own conference this year.

Rice invited Carter, a vocal critic of Bush administration policies, to the State Department on Wednesday where the two discussed his Arab-Israeli peacemaking efforts in the 1970s, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Friday.

A Soviet specialist, Rice also telephoned another former Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who tried, and ultimately failed, in his eight years in office to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together. (link)
Key word being failed. As in two nitwits who accomplished nothing positive while in office (I had to use that qualifier; Clinton did manage to accomplish the establishment of a new set of standards for White House conduct).

Asking for their advice on Middle East matters would be like asking Saddam Hussein for strategic and tactical military advice. Just having been there doesn't make them experts.

If this is true and Condoleezza Rice acts on whatever she learned from these two cowards, expect a declaration of surrender to be announced soon.

And watch for stains to appear on someone's blue dress.

Funny Halloween Pranks

A chuckle to get you through the day.