Disney may have evicted the (spirit of the) First Amendment from WMAL, but other stations take a different approach. For those of us in or near Southern California, he’ll be on KFI tomorrow night from 7-10, filling in for John Ziegler. Everyone else will have to wait until Monday.

The only good constitution is a dead constitution.

You can’t make this crap up.

UPDATE: It seems the elder statesman has finally apologized for his latest idiocy, but not before denying it happened at all:

“I didn’t say ‘assassination,’” Robertson said Wednesday on his Christian Broadcasting Network show “The 700 Club” about remarks reported by The Associated Press and other media outlets.

“I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ ‘Take him out’ could be a number of things including kidnapping.

“There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.”

Robertson is right about one thing; the Ass. Press does get things wrong all the time. This time, however, they got it exactly right. Here’s the original quote, which was broadcast on the Statesman’s own, Ass. Press free TV channel:

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Only after being called on that did the elder statesman finally admit that he did say “assassination” after all, and that he was wrong to do so. Still, better late than never. Now if he’d just apologize for all that other screwy stuff he’s said over the years. Oh well, at least he didn’t say this.

John Hawkins catches Mother Sheehan The Peace Mom aka The Next Rosa Parks Cindy Sheehan praising terrorists as freedom fighters, and wonders why the MSM hasn’t covered it. Meanwhile, the other Rosa Parks is making the rounds. Apparently, not all women with kids in the military oppose the war in Iraq after all. Whoda thunk it?

Here’s a reminder of what “Republican” John McCain, along with his partners in crime Russ Feingold, George “Whutz a Vee-Toe?” Bush and the Supreme “Court” have wrought. You probably already knew that McCain-Feingold sharply limits the amount of money politicians can raise to run for “elected” office in districts so horribly gerrymandered the incumbents have no chance of losing. What you may not have known is that there is no limit on the amount incumbents can raise to defeat the only initiative on the ballot right now that would do anything to change that. The Orange County Non-Dog Trainer has more.

Via Drudge, if this apparent snuff filmextreme beating video [caution: do I really have to caution you about a film I already said looks like a snuff film?] is real, I think it’s time we seriously consider wiping Oakland off the map. Given that this isn’t going to happen, perhaps one of you death penalty opponents can explain to me why anyone appearing in the video, including the guy who made it (but excluding the victim, obviously), should be breathing.

UPDATE: Also via Drudge, Oakland cops are unsure about the incident, or if it even took place in Oakland.

UPDATE x2: Cops have determined that it probably did indeed occur in Oakland, but not recently. It was lifted from DVD released in 2002, titled “World’s Wildest Street Fights Volume 1,” and appears to have occurred in a parking lot near the Ice Center on 18th Street, where several other crimes, including at least one homicide, have been known to occur. Cops still don’t know who the victim was, whether she survived the attack, or if so, the extent of her injuries. If you know anything about her call the Oakland P.D. at (510) 238-3821.

UPDATE x3: The victim, who does not wish to be identified, has contacted the police.

Patterico has an op-ed piece on Cindy Sheehan in the L.A. Times. If you read blogs, Patterico’s piece won’t tell you anything you don’t already know about St. Cynthia, but it will tell L.A. Times readers what they need to know, which the Times has conveniently left out.

A few days from now, watch for the Dog Trainer to a series of unhinged letters in response from Mother Sheehan’s bastard children. That’s where you come in. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to write a letter from a moonbat perspective, making the silliest arguments you can think of as to why Patterico is a big bad poopyhead for writing this piece, and why President Bush should start fulfilling his constitutional duty to spend the rest of his term doing nothing but meeting (and meeting again, and again, and again) with every screwball who has lost anyone as a result of any government policy. Send your letter to the Times and see what happens. Be sure to send me a copy, too, which will all but guarantee it will end up getting published somewhere.

UPDATE: This (h/t: HH) explains a lot.

UPDATE: But frankly, that (h/t: John Cole) is just rich.

John Hinderaker rightly notes that Cindy Sheehan isn’t polling well, but wrongly accuses her of threatening her son Casey to keep him from joining the service. Writes the Hindrocket:

By a 38% to 35% plurality, Americans disapprove of Cindy Sheehan. And that’s what they’re willing to say to pollsters! Plus, those figures are based mostly on the initial, totally positive media coverage of Sheehan. As time goes by, and people learn more about Sheehan–e.g., her anti-Americanism, and the fact that she was so fervently anti-war BEFORE her son enlisted that she vowed to run him down with her car if he joined up–her ratings will no doubt slide further.
[Link in original.]

Sound pretty damning, doesn’t it? The trouble is, the story Hindrocket linked to doesn’t exactly bear that out. In that interview, the circumstances surrounding Casey Sheehan’s enlisting or re-enlisting do not come up at all. The only reference to her “vowing” to run him down with a car was to a desperate offer by Sheehan to help him stay out of Iraq, not a threat to attack him if he chose to go voluntarily. Here it is, in full context:

CINDY SHEEHAN: Right. Our family was against it from the beginning. Casey was against it, but he felt it was his duty to go because he was in the Army. And he felt that he had to go to protect his buddies, to be there for his buddies, to be support, and they are brainwashed into thinking that even if they don’t agree with the mission, they’re brainwashed into just blindly following it. I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war. And he said, “Mom, I wish I didn’t have to, but I have to go.”

Bad Powerline. Bad!

Link via Patterico.

UPDATE: Hinderaker sort-of corrects his misrepresentation, writing:

UPDATE: It’s a small point, but I should have said “reenlisted” instead of “enlisted.” Casey Sheehan reenlisted in August 2003, and it was then, as I understand Mrs. Sheehan’s account, that she talked about running him down with her car to keep him from participating in that “immoral war.”

Actually, no, he shouldn’t have said either “enlisted” or “reenlisted,” as the conversation concerned his deployment to Iraq in 2004, not his decision to re-enlist in 2003. More importantly, it’s not a small but a huge one. It’s the difference between telling a gung-ho son “don’t you dare join that evil military or I’ll f’ing kill you” and offering desperate solutions to a reluctant son who doesn’t want to go off to war but thinks he has to. This has got to be the lamest correction I’ve seen anywhere except maybe the L.A. Times or Radley Balko’s blog.

Someone’s head is going to roll for this.

UPDATE: Well, that was quick. Loews has apologized. Xrlq gets results! [No, not really.]

Q: What’s dumb?

A: Liberal Democrats getting their panties in a bunch over a Supreme Court nominee’s ownership of property that contains a racially restrictive covenant he probably didn’t know about and could not have easily removed if he had wanted to, and which every lawyer in the world except maybe Michael McMenamin knows has been unenforceable since 1948.

Q: What’s dumber?

A: Other liberal Democrats getting their panties in a bunch getting their panties in a bunch over a different Supreme Court nominee owning property that doesn’t contain a racially restrictive covenant he probably didn’t know about and could not have added if he had wanted to, and which every lawyer in the world except maybe Michael McMenamin knows would have been unenforceable anyway since 1948, but happens to be located in an area where such covenants were once common.

Q: What’s dumberer?

A: That the second group of liberal Democrats consists not of Senators from dark blue states, whose job it is to be stupid and obnoxious, but of Ass. Press reporters, whose job it is to at least sound neutral.

Q: Whats’ dumbererer?

A: That neither the first nor the second group of liberal Democrats cared a whit that a third Supreme Court nominee (actually the second one, chronologically speaking) also owned a property that also didn’t contain an undisclosed, unenforceable-since-1948 racially restrictive covenant, but which was also located in an area where such covenants were once common.