Father's Day Surprise

Dodgers Style:




H/T  - The Coalition of the Swilling (the best blog name in the Universe, imho)

Your Decoder Ring Has Arrived

Do you remember when Ralphie finally decoded the message in A Christmas Story? Well you won't have to wait by the radio for a once a week clue. Thanks to the good folks at the Palestinian Media Watch now you can now what they're really saying:

Israeli term	Palestinian Arab term
(Palestinian) Terror	Resistance
(Palestinian) Terrorist	Resistance member
Suicide (bombing) operations	Martyrdom-seeking operations
Palestinian violence	Legitimate resistance
Person who was killed	Martyr (Shahid)
reciprocal violence	Resistance response
Israeli Minister of Defense	Israeli Minister of War
IDF - Israeli Defense Forces	Israeli occupation forces
Separation fence	Racist separation fence
Star of David	Six-pointed star
Wailing (Western) Wall	Al-Buraq Wall
Temple Mount	Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem
The Promised Land	The Land of Palestine
Judea and Samaria (Biblical terms)	The occupied West Bank

As they say... go read the whole thing.

There will be no Purple in Israel

I have never read The Color Purple. But that's my choice. If I were a Hebrew speaking Israeli it would be the author's choice. She won't permit her work to be translated in Hebrew. Why? Because Israel is "an apartheid state". Yes, really. The Times of Israel reports:

In a June 9 letter to Yediot Books, Walker said she would not allow the publication of the book into Hebrew because “Israel is guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people, both inside Israel and also in the Occupied Territories.”

Two "Revolutions"

A tale of Two Revolutions. Via Patterico comes word of a move to "take back" the term Velvet Revolution:

On November 19, 1989, the people of Prague, in the former state of Czechoslovakia, gathered to commemorate a massacre of Czech students by Nazi Germany fifty years earlier. By the end of the day, the gathering turned into a demonstration against a ruling  Communist government that had begun massacring Czechs and Slovaks from virtually the moment the Nazis were booted out. By December 29, 1989, without a shot fired, the protesters had driven out their Communist masters, electing poet, playwright, and political prisoner Vaclav Havel as interim President. This peaceful revolt by a peaceful people against their Stalinist puppet government became known as the “Velvet Revolution”.
On November 30, 2004, convicted terrorist bomber, drug dealer, and perjurer Brett Kimberlin formed a Maryland corporation for the purpose of soliciting tax-exempt donations from the public and charitable foundations, to promote an alleged “network of more than 100 progressive organizations reaching millions of people demanding progressive change through our various campaigns”. Campaigns such as offering bounties for the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice, and proof that John Kerry actually won the 2004 presidential election.
This corporation was also known as the Velvet Revolution, or “VelvetRevolution.US, Inc.” according to its corporate filings.

The idea it to link to the post and to the site as much as possible in order to lower the Google score of Kimberlin's organization:

If you link to this post, this site rises to the top of a search for Velvet Revolution. If you add this site to your blogroll, this site rises even further. And Brett Kimberlin’s site falls.

So I've dutifully linked to their post and have added them to my blogroll, and so should you, dear readers (both of you).

Do you know...

... who Bret Kimberlin is? A convicted domestic terrorist and purger. Who's not only NOT in prison, but running a left wing tax free organization, when he's not harassing and badgering people he disagrees with.

Video from Stix blog:

Michelle Malkin on the Free Speech Blog Burst

Protesting NATO?

Someone help me out here... but when did NATO become this lightening rod for lefty/anarchist/whackadoodle protesters?

See, for example, 3 men accused of terror plot... and check the pictures at the link. I especially like this one:

Connecticut's Welcome Mat for Small Businesses

So, you own a moving company in Rhode Island and get calls from Connecticut to handle moving people's stuff... except the jobs start and end in Connecticut. You politely tell the potential profit making customer that you can't take their money because you're not licensed to operate in Connecticut. But since you get so many calls you decide to open a branch in Connecticut.

But first, you have to play "Mother, May I" with the State Department of Transportation.
Yes, really:

If Connecticut is open for business, Bob Romano wants to know who turned out the lights.
Romano, owner of Warwick, R.I.-based Coutu Brothers Movers, applied several months ago to expand his current three-truck moving operation into North Stonington. By his estimation, Romano spent more than $6,000 doing everything the state Department of Transportation told him to do: leasing a convenient location on Norwich-Westerly Road, paying his business-entity fee and even making repairs to the office space he intended to occupy.
Then, last week, a DOT hearing officer issued what Romano saw as a stunning denial of his application, saying the business owner had not proved there was a need for his services and noting that two other moving companies in the region had claimed new competition would hurt their businesses.

It would appear that Connecticut state government is in the business of ... raising barriers to entry to business. How did it come to be that a small business has to demonstrate a need before being allowed to open? Why is the government licensing and permitting moving companies in the first place? I mean, other than the making sure their trucks are registered and insured, why does this guy have to beg to compete for business? As is usually the case, when government over regulates government becomes a tool of established businesses to keep upstarts out - or sometimes a weapon for one business to use against another.

But Connecticut is turning a corner. After spending a sweet $27 Million dollars on out of state advertising, we're proclaiming ourselves to be... Still Revolutionary. $27 million. I could have come up with something only half as bad for a quarter of the money. 

Connecticut: Still Revolutionary, unless you run a business.