From Whence Comes the ACLU?

From my friend John Stephenson

Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal"."__Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

More info: American Communist Lawyers Union
A Short History Of The ACLU
The Record of the American Civil Liberties Union
Congressional Record: The Truth About The American Civil Liberties Union
A History Lesson On The ACLU
The ACLU - The Founding Fathers of Degeneracy & American Communism

Hillary's Hsu Shine!

Hillary Clinton's fundraising problems with Norma Hsu (pronounced 'shoe') don't seem to be "fading" as fast as no doubt her handlers would wish. Recently, Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell returned money to Hsu as have countless others. Hillary's campaign spokespeople have consistently said that they had no idea that he was either wanted, or crooked for that matter. Yeah? Oh, by the bye, did I tell you about that bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale?

Clinton's favorite bundler and a designated "Hill Raiser" moved millions of dollars to a variety of Democratic office holders and aspirants but Hillary was by far the biggest single recipient of Hsu's largesse. Does anyone believe, really, that Hillary wasn't trying to garner the same type of dough that Bill glommed onto in the mid 90's? Really? If so, how gullible can you be? Guess you don't know the meaning of Shine do you? (Definition # 15)

Mahmoud & Michael X³

Political Cartoonist Michael Ramirez has had a field day with Mahmoud AhMADinejad these last few days, first with the Iranian PUNK President wanting to go to the Twin Towers memorial site, next with his SPEECH harangue at Columbia University and lastly with his INTEMPERATE asinine rant at the United Nations. So, for those of you not familiar with this outstanding cartoonist, I present the three above noted Editorial Cartoons true life portraits of Mahmoud.

First, the real reason he wanted to visit the Twin Tower Site:

Continue reading "

Mahmoud & Michael X³

"

Mahmoud & Michael X³

Political Cartoonist Michael Ramirez has had a field day with Mahmoud AhMADinejad these last few days, first with the Iranian PUNK President wanting to go to the Twin Towers memorial site, next with his SPEECH harangue at Columbia University and lastly with his INTEMPERATE asinine rant at the United Nations. So, for those of you not familiar with this outstanding cartoonist, I present the three above noted Editorial Cartoons true life portraits of Mahmoud.

First, the real reason he wanted to visit the Twin Tower Site:

Continue reading "

Mahmoud & Michael X³

"

The Dream Act

Fausta reports on the Dream Act. I think it should be renamed the "Lets shove amnesty into a defense bill so that none of the redneck yahoos notice it Act"

I'm Sorry Mrs. Clinton...

...but I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief about so very many of the things you have done and weasled about. I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief about the dispicable behavior of many in the Democratic party over the war, over their behavior towards other house and senate members when the Dems sense blood in the water, I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief about:

Rose Law Firm documents turning up in the White House.

Your making $100,000.00 with a $10,000.00 investment in such a short time.

Telling the Light The Lamp reporter: "As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative..."

Telling people you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

Your saying you had no idea that Norma Hsu was corrupt.

Your many lies about Iraq depending on who you are talking to.

Your denying participating in smear campaigns of others.

Telling people that Chelsea was "in danger" she was jogging right by the Twin Towers on 9/11 when in fact she was on the other side of town.

Stating in "Liveing History" that you worked for Mel Burnstein when in fact you worked for Robert Treuhaft a member of the Communist Party of the USA and Lawyer for the party..

About anything you might claim about what you will do as president.

Posted by GM Roper at 06:53 PM | Comments (4)

It Depends Upon the Meanings of "Associated" and "Betray"

As widely publicized, Moveon.org (which never moves on) ran a full page ad on Monday in The New York Times (discounted by $102,000) attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, with the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

At an important Congressional hearing, Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified on the U.S. future in Iraq. At that hearing, this exchange took place:

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida): "...I offer my colleagues the opportunity to use this hearing to distance themselves from the despicable ad that was published today calling into question the patriotism of General Petraeus.”

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii): "Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren’t associated with.”

Liberals defended the ad and said that the inference that that the general is a traitor is wrong because "the word 'traitor' appears nowhere in the MoveOn.org ad.... The word 'betray' used by MoveOn in the ad implies many meanings, but does not directly imply 'traitor'."

Here are my thoughts:

• The ad is wrong and offensive to say that our commanding general in Iraq betrays our country.
• The Democrats do not consider that taking money from MoveOn.org, accepting its publicity, and participating at its convention is the same as associating with that organization.
• The word betray, when used in context of military leadership, clearly suggests that the general is a traitor.
• The Democrats are not distancing themselves from the ad, much less condemning it.

It's bad for a major suporter of Democrats to suggest that our general betrays us, it's bad for an elected U.S. represetative to not "distance" himself from such a statement, it's bad to hide behind the word "associated" and an unexplicable definition of it, and it's bad to defend the ad with a strange definition of "betray."

The Democratic dictionary sure keeps people confused (not to mention that they end sentences with prepostions.)

Can't the Democrats quit hiding behind words and just come out and say that the ad is wrong because they are loyal Americans and serve in Congress? (You don't have to answer that.)

But, just to show how simple this should be, the word "betray" has a clear meaning when used to describe a military person, it is offensive and misleading to use that term to describe this general, I have no association with MoveOn.org, yet, I can not only distance myself from its ad but, as a patriot, I condemn it as well.

Try it yourself. If we can show Democrats that we can condemn the MoveOn.org ad, then maybe they will know that it's possible.

In the meantime, people should be reminded of the cowardly refusal of the Democrats to do the right thing, and people should continue to pressure them to condemn disgusting attacks on a good and competent general. We wouldn't want the Democrats to be put into a position where others would say that they betrayed our soldiers and our country.

Just Who Are The Hypocrites Here?

Hypocrite: hyp·o·crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ [hip-uh-krit] –noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

I've not said much (anything?) about the Larry Craig issue, I'm no fan of his, nor am I one of his constituents. Thus, I really have no dog in this fight (with apologies to PETA and the ASPCA). I tend to vote and support Republican Conservatives, but I vote for Conservative Democrats as well.

Having said that, I'm sick of the seeming hypocrisy of those who loudly cry "Hypocrite" when it comes to Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). The issue is whether Senator Craig is a hypocrite because he may be gay (or perhaps bi-sexual) and is "anti-gay marriage."

S.O. W.H.A.T.? Craig's supposedly "cruising foot work" means only that he may have been seeking sex in a public restroom. It does not hold that because he was seeking gay sex he automatically must believe in gay marriage. There are many gays that don't want gay marriage, but do want say, civil unions. There may be even some gays that do not necessarily want either gay marriage or civil unions.

Gay Patriot notes:

In yesterday’s Washington Post Marc Fisher wrote that such “work requires” the “outers” to “play God” (Via Michael Silence via Instapundit). As if they know better than the rest of us. An attitude not too different from that of religious zealots. Indeed, the very title of the column, focusing on the actions of blogger Michael Rogers, Who Among Us Would Cast the First Stone? This Guy suggests that Rogers has the same certainty of belief as do those judgmental voices on the religious right whom his allies on the left are ever eager to criticize.

Fisher is right to ask, “who elected him moral arbiter?” A question not too different than that many ask of social conservatives eager to label gay people sinners.

Like me, Fisher questions if these outings “liberate anyone” or if they “just add another bolt and chain to the closet door.”

I agree that these outings don’t accomplish much, but wonder at the religious zeal with which the outers attempt to make their case. For they seem to know how all gay people should vote on certain issues. Just as certain social conservatives seem to know how all people should express their sexuality.

Both groups act as if they know better than the rest of us. And neither seems to understand the complicated lives, the perplexing passions and personal struggles of those whose political beliefs or sexual orientation makes them so uncomfortable. [read the whole thing]

Perhaps the hypocrites here are the ones that believe that if you are gay, you must buy the whole "gay agenda." Perhaps the hypocrites here are those who say what goes on in a persons private sexual life is private, yet are bashing Larry Craig for his private sexual behavior are the hypocrites. For my money, there is no "perhaps" there, we know who the real hypocrites are, and it doesn't include Larry Craig.

Moral Retardation & Islamophobia

You will have to excuse a somewhat longish introduction but I think it necessary to set the tone for the whole post.

One of the smartest people on the web today, a blogger par excelance is Gagdad Bob who writes One Cosmos and who's banner proclaims:

Circumnavelgazing the Whole Existentialada of Lumin Development with a Seer's Prattleogue of Joycey Jimgnostics, Verticalesthetics, Dilettantric Yoga, Stand-up Cosmology, Wide Angle Pneumography, Extreme Seeking, Freevangelical Pundamentalism, Darwhiggian Evolution, and Buddhaflaw Correcting, all in a Reluxing Atmasphere of Omade Jehovial Witticisms

Bob's site never ever under any circumstances ceases to amaze me at both his insight, and his love of punny stuff. For who else could string together such a lengthy list of puns and gags? But, I digress. I always feature one of Bob's brilliant pieces in my series "Brief Politico-therapies: A Tour of the Psychbloggers." Today, I was scanning both an email from the indescribable Larwyn and a post from Gagdad Bob and I came across the term "Moral Retardation," and it struck me what a profound term that is, because it so well describes o much of what we call the left and the cult of islamofascism. Bob stated:

The moral retardation of so many leftists just astonishes me. And it is literally retardation, for just as one may be mentally retarded but a decent person, one may be intellectually brilliant but a moral imbecile, as so many leftist professors prove (not that they're so brilliant, either). Violence is good or bad, depending entirely upon the uses to which it is put."

[...]

Yes, fighting fascists will only create more fascists! Until we kill all of them.

At a particularly dark time of the war, "when Germany's panzer divisions turned west, Allied armies collapsed under the ferocious onslaught, and British ships were streaming across the Straits of Dover from Dunkirk, [Gandhi] wrote furiously to the Viceroy of India: 'This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man....'" [by the bye, read the whole thing]

So, Gandhi was, except for who he was willing to bow down to, a early modern dhimmi.

And, the suggestions that Gandhi made for European Jews was morally reprehensible in suggesting mass suicide as a "moral" response. As Bob notes, after the war when the extent of the holocaust became known, Gandhi was alleged to have said "that the Jews died anyway, didn't they? They might as well have died significantly."

Moral Retardation! That is what we are going to talk about when it comes to the islamofacist and their supporters. I'm sure you are as tired of being called an Islamophobe as I am, but when you get right down to it, it is a meaningless term used by morally retarded individuals who wish to see only one side of any dust-up involving Muslims. Let's get at least one thing straight, a phobia is a real disorder involving an irrational fear of a person, place, thing or situation. And the fear is such, that it interferes with normal day to day living/functioning. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th ed. (text revision) (DSM-IV TR) has a diagnostic code of 300.29 for any given specific phobia. Thus, Coulrophobia (a fear of clowns) is given a diagnosis something like this:

Axis I: 300.29 Coulrophobia

Don't laugh, people who have true phobias are in many ways quite miserable in their fear. But again, I digress, so the term of islamophobia is a fauxphobia if you will. If someone is out to kill you (oh, not you specifically necessarily, for example they are not out to kill GM Roper, that I know of) but out to set bombs and other devices designed for mass death it is not an irrational fear.

If I believed, in spite of all available evidence that Islamists were out to kill me, the appropriate diagnosis might be paranoia. If I tremble and exhibit fight or flight symptoms in the presence of a Muslim, that might well be a case of islamophobia. But being angry at Muslims for not standing up to the islamofascists in their midst is not islamophobia, it is plain old anger, and not misplaced anger.

In the past, when Christians have trespassed the bounds of decency such as bombing abortion clinics, or a certain well known TV Evangelist saying that the tragedy of 9/11 may be God's wrath being visited on sinful America, the backlash against this was immediate and pronounced and most often, dealt with swiftly and succinctly. That has been almost universal. Even the bloodshed in Northern Ireland was denounced by a majority of Christians. Not so the trepidations of the islamofascists by other "moderate" Muslims. At least not more than a few.

Which brings us right back to the concept of Moral Retardation. There can be no response to the violence of the islamofascists other than to beat it back swiftly and harshly. To do otherwise is to embrace their tactics at worst, and at best a reprehensible bow to inhuman tactics. The Democrats (and others) who inveigh against the war in Iraq (or, if you are an avid reader of the New York Times inveigh against fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or as James Taranto says in the Wall Street Journals "Best of the Web Today:"

"al Qaeda Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq in Mesopotamia Which Also Has Nothing to Do With Iraq Even Though It's Another, More Poetic Name for Iraq Which Has Nothing to Do With al Qaeda, a Homegrown Iraqi Group That Has Nothing to Do With Iraq Even Though It Is Mostly Iraqi, Albeit With Some Foreign Involvement Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq."

Convoluted to say the least. Yet, we can see in the left and in the Democratic party specific signs that indicate that there is no belief in this war, that it was a mistake, that it should have been a "police action" at most and preferably we would have negotiated with our enemies. Although they do not say how you negotiate with people that are actively trying to kill you.

If one cannot see that the reaction to a bunch of cartoons and ink drawings that call for beheading and death for the artist is over the top, the moral retardation is profound. What ever happened to the stalwart fellow who used to say "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?" What happened to liberalism? I'm old enough to remember when the staunchest anti-communists were part and parcel of the Democratic Party, that their willingness to tolerate a despotic and violent system was close to zero. Where did those people go? Have they all died out? Have they been replaced by those who say that islamofascism is just another belief just like Christianity and Judaism or Hinduism and Buddhism?

The chorus from the left is almost non-existent, except to say "Get out of Iraq," or perhaps a plea to "negotiate" with Iran or Syria. Cannot those people see the ultimate aim of the islamofascists? Cannot they tell that the tactics used by islamofascists and their supporters, those who hold up signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" are beyond the pale? Is the moral retardation that profound?

I cannot help but wonder where and when there will be another strike of unimaginable proportions. Is that what it will take to wake up these people? Does the multiple arrests worldwide of would be terrorists complete with finding the ingredients of explosive devices not convince you that this is indeed a war of belief? If it doesn't, count yourself in with the other moral retardates, for you see, but you do not believe, you see, but you do not understand what is laid out before you in simple black and white.

So, the Diagnostic Criteria for Moral Retardation can be stated fairly easily:

An inability to comprehend the evil of islamofascism that occurs prior to the age of 100 and is pervasive in all or almost all of political thought and the presence of two or more of the following:

A belief that western values and traditions are a direct cause of increasing violence by the islamofascists.

An inability to roundly condemn the tactics of beheading, explosive devices set off among non-military targets.

A belief that George Bush is an evil greater than any other.

A belief that all cultures are morally equivalent.

An inability to understand that the very values that allow one to condemn the west, would be silenced should the islamofascists take over any political organization.

Others may be able to add to the criteria, but for now, and for arguments sake, these are posted for your consideration.

Update: A great example of Moral Retardation here.

Campaign Finance Reform: A Fable For Modern Times

Once Upon A Time

in a land far, far away, the majority of Democrats began harping about "big money" influencing votes. They whined, cried, said the poor little man had no influence because big money bought face time, perverted the "democratic process," influenced votes, and other nefarious plots against we little fellows. Of course, what really counted were votes, but that too was fairly perverted because congress-critters consistently did everything they possibly could to make sure they got re-elected. And, you know what? It didn't matter which party got re-elected, even if the two houses switched from time to time because they all knew that they would switch back sooner or later. Of course, the spineless republicans assisted in this move towards campaign finance reform this massive re-election gambit because they didn't want to appear to be beholden to big money either.

So, boys and girls, a couple of less than wise Senators, by the name of Mack Kain and Fine Gold sat down one evening over a glass of very strong iced tea and concocted a little jewel called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002 and lo and behold, with the support of King Georgeous II the bill passed. Of course, the impetus for the bill was something called the campaign finance scandal of 1996:

In 2002, spurred by the 1996 campaign finance scandal which involved illegal donations to the Democratic Party from overseas sources and, later, the collapse of Enron, a major contributor to politicians at all levels of the U.S. system...
Source

Now children, in 1996, there was a King by the name of Bill Clinton, our very first black president. King Bill got caught with having people spend the night in the King Abraham bedroom and he charged a heck of a lot more than the Holiday in does, let me tell you! He did it again, and again, and again. Not satisfied with that, he also took a lot of money from a couple of Chinese fellows who were probably working for the government of the People's Republic of China (and you should note kiddies, that any government that has "People's Republic" in its title, isn't either - but that's another story) and he approved the sale of some very sophisticated stuff to the People's Republic which they probably couldn't have obtained in any other way. But, back to my story. The various folk fed millions of dollars into the Democratic Party coffers (sometimes by asking friends to donate, then reimbursing them which is not only bad form, but illegal too). In fact, when the Sheriff came knocking at their doors, they escaped out the back door and fled to the People's republic where they wouldn't have to answer any questions.

Then, in 1996, the Assistant King by the name of Algore (you pronounce that OWLGORE) went to a Buddhist Temple to give a speech for his race for the Assistant Kingship. Now, the monks and nuns at the Buddhist Temple had all taken a vow of poverty, that means that they had no money at all. They promised to stay poor so that they could be ascetics and help others. But you know what, by the magic of the ghostly givers, those poor monks and nuns who had no money at all suddenly found the very next day 42 plus checks made out to the campaign fund totalling more than $100,000.00 and that is a lot of Wheaties kids. Later, way more than half was found to be illegal in spite of the fact that Assistant King Algore said that there was "no controlling legal authority." Boy, was he wrong.

And so, here we are today, the wife of Former King Bill is running to be king and her royal thighness has been busy collecting money for that race. She has collected money from a fellow by the name of Norman Hsu. Hsu was also implicated in the 1996 funny-money business (source) and 11 years later, Mr. Hsu is at it again. In fact, Mr. Hsu has some friends named Paw who have also given a bunch of money to the wife of Former King Bill (her name is Hillary by the way) and the Paws have barely enough money to live in a little green house right smack dab in the middle of a flight pattern for the airport. And, it turns out that Mr. Hsu is not even an honest guy, he is wanted for, well, just take my word for it children, he is wanted by the LAW. Not only that, but another fellow by the name of Abdul Rehman Jinnah between 2004 and 2005 funneled money into Hillary's coffers and the coffers of other Democrats. Mr. Jinnah is now wanted by the FBI but he seems to be playing HIDE-and-go-seek.

Miss Hillary's spokespeople have said that Mr. Hsu was an honorable man and they wouldn't be giving any money back, but that was yesterday and today is today and now they have given a whole bunch of that money to charity. Of course, they think that by giving the money to charity, it lessens the likelihood of anyone saying that they were involved in any way, but we know better don't we children?

Then there is the Case of Peter Paul and whether or not Miss Hillary was involved in bilking of others by taking part in planning a fraudulent fund raiser. Yes boys and girls, there is now a civil suit and Miss. Hillary may have to testify under oath. But that's OK, as we have learned in the past she is very forgetful.

And so children, this little fable comes to an end, but there is a moral you must learn. And that moral is:

Beware of people that tell you they want reform, because too often it only means a different way of doing the same thing.

Another Note to Liberals - Dems Betray U.S.

While the left-wing and liberal Democrats decend upon the men's rooms of Idaho, there is a more serious issue threatening our country--the sell-out of America to foreign nations for Democratic campaign funds. We've seen this with Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Congressional Democats, and back to Clinton II. When I raised the issue of illegal Chinese contributions made to Hillary Cliinton in another thread, this is how one idiot (a polite term) responded:

reg Says: Has anyone noticed that Woody lambastes Hillary for taking money from “the Chinese”. The guy in question, who proabaly is attempting to stuff Hillary’s coffers via third parties and might well have violated campaign finance lawas - is a New York businessman in the rag trade. But, of course, he’s one of “the Chinese”. The racism is stinking up this thread…

Racism--what a popular but inaccurate way to deflect the truth and attempt to halt debate--whether it's about Chinese espionage, Mexican illegals, profiling Arab terrorists, or criticism of a black quarterback for dog fights.

It doesn't work, and I'm not going to let that pass. Here was my reply:

reg, you're such an idiot. The reference to Chinese was not about a race of people but of a communist nation that threatens both the U.S. and deprives freedom to hundreds of millions of people and pays the Democrats to betray us.

The man in question is from Hong Kong, despite your weak effort to deflect that by saying that he simply is a New York businessman. He also is a fugitive from justice and guilty of grand theft.

China has been engaged in extensive espionage in our country and that nation paid Bill Clinton laundered campaign money to obtain our missile guidance systems, which it uses to aim 13 of its 18 ICBM's at the U.S. and which can now carry ten warheads apiece rather than just one. Remember Johnny Chung?

The Clinton's have sold out American interests for illegal foreign contributions and continue to do so. In addition, Al Gore, John Kerry, and multiple Democrats have benefited from these illegal contributions.

THAT should be your worry rather than phony charges of racism, Idiot.

The Democrats will betray our nation for money--whether it's for campaigns or "services" in retirement. It's happened before, but we need to shine light on this problem so that it doesn't continue to happen. Maybe I'm a "racist" against traitors.

I've got to stop responding to jerks and idiots at liberal sites before G.M. shoots me, as I asked him to do if I did that again. But, the disdain for America by the left-wing and liberals cannot be ignored. In this case, we can honestly say, "It's for the children," whom I do like.

I'm Sick of "Second-Guessing Liberals"

Whenever I lose my head and read a liberal blog, I see the same repetitive anti-war comments claiming stupidity of President Bush and denouncing mistakes that he has made in Iraq. The liberals knew "from day one" what obstacles that we faced, but they just didn't mention them at the time. For example:

You can call me a “Monday moring quarterback” but I’ll stand on my record in seeing through not just the phony rationales for the war but the way its been waged and most of what’s followed from it. I understood from Day One that this debate started that the “WMD threat” was being hyped for purely political reasons. I knew from Day One that there was no strategic national security reason to invade Iraq and that we were being suckered by the neoCons’ crackpot agenda. I believed from Day One that Rumsfeld was going in with too few troops to successfully secure the country. I knew within weeks of the invasion that security was unraveling disastrously....

You get the point. From day one, the dark side had all the facts and all the answers. Right. Liberals are great at pointing fingers, but talk is cheap. What could they really do if asked before hostilities broke out?

I gave them a chance. After reading that French President Sarkozy said that diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's production of a nuclear bomb must work or that Iran would have to be attacked, I asked these left-wing liberal geniuses to prove what they could do.

For “everyone who knows all the facts and solutions from day one,” share your wisdom now on this (Iran's) WMD issue rather than wait to see what didn’t work.

Response has been somewhat quiet, but one person said that they were speaking no differently than Bush when he made a comparison of Iraq to Viet Nam, and would I attack him for second-guessing President Nixon? They never answer the question that is asked.

That's it! I'm sick and tired of their rhetoric and better than thou attitudes. Here is my rant.

To liberals and left-wingers regarding Iraq, you’re not even talking about the same thing. Bush discussed Viet Nam from a long-term historical standpoint and said that there were lessons to be learned from its aftermath. That’s different than finger-pointing and saying that the coach is doing it all wrong with each step and, in many cases, while the game is still being played and, at the same, time screaming and throwing bottles at the team and demoralizing the players on the field.

You’re already planning on halving the athletic budget when the team needs equipment and you want to yank the players off the field before they achieve victory. You’re the guys who sit by and watch the coach go for it on 4th and 2, and if it didn’t work, you say, “I would have kicked.” If the offensive line “surges” forward and the play does work for a first down, then you look the other way or say that it didn’t work despite the obvious down marker, and you hope that some idiots will believe you.

Well, if you know everything, why aren’t you coaching? Why didn’t you say something before the game was played or the play was run? It’s because you aren’t qualified and know less than you admit.

You guys are the biggest bunch of second-guessing whinners that I’ve ever heard, and you won’t even tell us what plays we should run against next week’s opponent, Iran, before that contest begins. Come on! Show us your coaching skills. At least let us know that you’re pulling for our team rather than the opponent, because it’s sure not clear.

The only people who respect your opinions and think that you’re brilliant are YOU yourselves.

Other people must sit back and laugh at the stuff that you write. I sure do.

We've made decisions with Iraq. We need to make decisions regarding Iran. Where are the wise people? Why, the Democrats, who were going to end the Iraq conflict, still cannot agree what to do to this day. Oh, they talked about it during the election (remember, talk's cheap), but they haven't done anything constructive.

The only people who are dumber than people who make bad decisions are those people who refuse to make decisions at all, because not making a decision is the same thing as letting someone else do it for you. It just gives you the false satisfaction of being able to blame someone else.

Liberals never have been good at taking responsibility. Now, we know that they aren't very good at giving advice either--just blame. I'm still trying to figure out why they consider themselves smart. That's one thing that I didn't decide for them.

Instead of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks," a better name for them might be "Monday Moron Quarterbacks."

Trash from Horton

Trashing the trashers who trash the trashers who trashed the trasher that trashed the military? Convoluted? Yes! Inaccurate? No! Let me explain.

In Harper's Magazine an article dated yesterday (August 24, 2007) and authored by Scott Horton (What is it with these fellows named Scott? Except Scott Johnson of Powerline of course!) appears that takes on the neo-con publications and news sources that have trashed The New Republic's reporting by one Scott Thomas (in real life, the husband of a TNR Staffer Scott Thomas Beauchamp). Thomas wrote an article of dubious (nay, not dubious, outright falsehood it seems) truth regarding the depredations by members of his unit in Iraq. I've reported on this in the past (here and here and my blogging partner Woody here, and others here and here and from fellow Munuvian Ace of Spades HQ here). Horton begins his trashing of the neo-cons thusly:

Over the last two weeks there was a flap over a piece published in The New Republic by an American soldier in Iraq named Scott Beauchamp. He described a number of gruesome scenes, some of which did not portray his fellow soldiers in the best of light. The piece drew ferocious blow-back from the Neocon war party, whose hallmark is complete control over the news on the ground and from the front ranks in Iraq. They viewed the report as a violation of their sacred monopoly and were determined to destroy Beauchamp and to lash out at The New Republic.

I have no idea whether Beauchamp’s story was accurate. But at this point I have seen enough of the Neocon corner’s war fables to immediately discount anything that emerges from it.

No idea "whether Beauchamp's story was accurate? Well wow and gee willikers Howdy, this here Horton fellow apparantly either can't read, or is so wrapped up in his own partisan shell that he can't make heads or tales of what is so patently ridiculous that even non veterans of Iraq had difficulty buying it. Not only that, but Messr. Beauchamp has "retracted" his story with the Army. It seems as though our essayest Horton (I wonder if he ever did hear the Who?) reads but understands only what he want's to.

I've bashed the Republicans and conservatives often enough so that I can honestly say that I think I can tell a scoundrel when I read one, but if seems if Mr. Horton lacks that particular ability. He relates a situation where he says that he is personally knowledgable about mis-reporting in the "neo-con Corner."

One example: back last spring, when I was living in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, I sat in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack. He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day “in the submarine,” as they say, missing appointments I had in town. Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day. In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position. No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street. This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications."

Horton obviously wants us to believe, though he doesn't say, that both his experience and the "neo-con" report occurred on the same day, on the same street during the same time frame. That may or may not have been the case for I've heard many stories about peaceful scenes that were later pictures of hell. Mr. Horton, does the difference between 8:00:00 AM and 8:46:41 AM on September 11, 2001 on a certain densly populated island in New York ring a bell? If he is accurate, and the two "images" are the same at the same time on the same day in the same place then certainly the author of the "bucolic" scene deserves condemnation of the worst kind. But, notice that Mr. Horton does not name the day of the so called fictious story or the author of the false scene. Why would that be Mr. Horton? If you know of it, and don't reveal it one has to wonder why. Maybe you just didn't think it important? This could be your chance at immortality Mr. Horton... go on, tell us who, when, and what exactly happened and I'll be one of the very first to condem the scoundrel.

But, I digress.

What’s interesting about this whole affair is not the Beauchamp story, but the response to it from William Kristol, the Weekly Standard, and their quite amazing ability to exercise total command and control over the public affairs operations at the Pentagon throughout the process.

Oh, yes, I've heard about all the amazing powers of William Kristol and his ability to mesmerize the PAO at the Pentagon. Not only that, but he is controling my typing even as I post this AND controling the minds of all those that read this post and (shudder) believe!

Horton then brings up Jonathan Chait as a witness for the prosecution:

The best volley in this exchange so far was fired yesterday by Jonathan Chait. He titles his piece “The Thuggery of William Kristol” [I won't link to Chait, if you really want to, go and Goggle it.] and he goes straight for the jugular:

Offering up [Kristol’s] interpretation of why TNR would publish such slanders, he concluded, in an editorial titled, “They Don’t Really Support the Troops”:

”Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them–that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country.”

In just two sentences, this passage provides a full summary of the decrepit intellectual state of neoconservatism. First, there is Kristol’s curious premise that tnr only published this essay because we have “turned against” the war. If Beauchamp’s writings were tnr’s attempt to discredit the war, why would his first contribution describe a pro-American Iraqi boy savagely mutilated by insurgents? For that matter, why would we work to undermine the war by publishing a first-person account on the magazine’s back page rather than taking the more straightforward step of, say, editorializing for withdrawal?"

Well, Mr. Chait, I can surmise that he discussed the boy being "savagely mutilated" to lend credence to his faux-reporting.

Horton ends his piece with this little bit of trash:

"...his comments left me thinking back to Bush’s awful Weimar speech from yesterday. Did Bill Kristol have a hand in that atrocity as well? In any event, that speech was clearly stained with Neocon DNA."

Ohhh Mr. Horton. You are sooooo clever aren't you?

There you have it folks, the brilliant left as exemplified by Messrs. Horton and Chait, are supporting the faux-reporting of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, admitted and proven liar. This then, ends my trashing of the trashers (Horton and Chait) who trash the trashers (Kristol) who trashed the trasher(Beauchamp) that trashed the military. Now does my opening sentence make more sense?

Technorati Tags & Filed under: Leftist Agenda, Bozo Alerts,Media, & War on Terror

Zero Tolerance or Zero Brains?

A student in the eighth grade was suspended five days from school for drawing, no make that sketching, a gun. Sketching sounds better.

Student suspended for sketching gun

The uproar over the drawing, which the student turned in with a school assignment, cuts to the question of what constitutes a "threat."

When I was a kid in school, I used to draw bombers dropping bombs and fighter jets shooting bullets. I must have been a threat to the entire city.

School officials have put the student's sketch in his file, which is not open to the public.

Good. Keep that gun drawing locked up where it won't present a threat to anyone else. This kid has no Second Amendment right to a picture of a gun, and we know that pictures of guns kill.

This "zero tolerance" is showing no brains or good judgement by the government school officials. It reminds me of the suspension of a little girl in the Atlanta area for having a Tweety Bird keychain because the school considered it a weapon.

Liberals are easily excited over nothing and throw all common sense aside in these cases.

And, when pictures of guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have pictures of guns.

Could 2008 Be 1968 for the Democrats?

Have the Democrats failed to learn from history (they always do) to the degree that they will allow their 2008 Democratic convention and the presidential election to disintegrate into 1968 all over again? Will Denver be like Chicago with the radicals and anti-war protestors dominating and tearing the convention apart? It could be, if the following is a sample of what's to come.

.

Daily Kos: Pelosi's Stand Blocking Impeachment
in the House is Killing the Democratic Party

It's not just the Constitution that's suffering because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's nutty and unprincipled "impeachment-off-the-table" position blocking any effort to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney for their many crimes and abuses of power.

...WE are the ones that put that Democrats back in power in Congress. We've been there for you, but you have let us down by not holding the current administration responsible for their crimes.

...Whether it is by turning to third party candidates, or just sitting out the next election, these angry and frustrated Democrats are showing that they've been betrayed one too many times by the Democratic Party. ....

Democratic Underground: Clinton to VFW:
"Surge" working in some areas (Comments)

☺NEW WAR ??? What is she ...Bushes sister? OMG I am not voting for her! - It's obvious that she plans to continue the illegal Iraq war. Well she voted for the war so I guess it makes sense that she thinks she could do a better job of mass murder. Maybe she can get her daughter to enlist and go help kill a few babies and mothers along with all our other baby killers.

☺Hillary is a hawk and this only confirms it - She has supported Bush in the Iraq War all the way and what will haunt her is clips of her advocating the war.

Baby killers? Well, the Democrats made deals for the support of those crazies who still say such things. If the wackos believe that they are the power behind the party, and it sure seems that way given the way that the Democratic candidates kowtow to them, then the Kossacks and Dem Unders will be out in force at the Democratic convention demanding that the candidates do what the protestors demand--or else. I like the "or else" option for them the best. Maybe Karl Rove isn't really stupid, as they say.

Mussolini Chavez Tries For "President for Life" In Venezuela

......................Father and Son?......

He stood at the edge of the balcony, jaw out-thrust, glaring at the crowds, looking like the pugnacious tyrant that he was. Raising his hand in a fascist like salute he roared out to the crowd that he was the leader, that the legislature had granted him, or soon would if they knew what was good for them, the leadership of the country for as long as he wanted. Or at any rate, long after the current law allowed. This was to make sure that all of the people, all of the businesses had a chance to change from a formerly fairly backwards society to the modern imperial democracy that the people deserved and wanted. Benito Mussolini? No, Hugo Chavez, dictator of Venezuela, not that there is a whole lot of difference between them.

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez called for changes to Venezuela's constitution Wednesday night, delivering a key address pitching reforms that are expected to allow him to be re-elected indefinitely. [emphasis added]

Source

The National Assembly, completely under the thumb of Chavez's supporters and sycophants, is expected to give Chavez what he wants. Chavez stated:

They accuse me of making plans to be in power forever or to concentrate power. We know it isn't like that. It's power of the people," Chavez said. "So many lies in the world. I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela today."

What really amazes me, not that this petty tyrant is trying to grab power (hell, he already has) is that there is not a bigger outcry in this country.

To be sure, I'm not advocating invasion or wresting control of Venezuela via a US sponsored coup (we screwed up in a similar situation with Allende in the 70's) but no outcry at all? Where are the democracy supporters in this country? I hear bloggers on the right decrying this thug. I hear a few on the left doing the same, but overall? I'm surprised that as far as I can tell, Jimmy Carter (who oh so sickeningly proclaimed Chavez's last election fair and above-board) hasn't said a word.

It will be interesting to watch and see if the MSM picks up on this. Oh sure, the WSJ has, so has The Guardian and USA Today. But where are the others? The New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times? As of this posting, they haven't even picked up the AP wire-story as far as I can tell. Perhaps they aren't interested or perhaps they secretly want to see this thug sticking it to Bush directly and the United States indirectly

The State Department wants to wait to see what the "proposals" are before commenting.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday that the U.S. would wait for details of Chávez's proposal before commenting on it. He added that Chávez in the past "has taken a number of different steps…that have really eroded some of the underpinnings of democracy in Venezuela."

Source - The AP

Why wait, if the folk in the State Department don't know what is going down in Venezuela by now, they need to be fired! Nuts, even a 12 year old with a modicum amount of interest in South and Central America should be able to see what is going on down there.

Lying Liberals at Work

When Scot Beauchamp Gets Out

"Pssst, sir, you really don't want to eat here. Let me tell you what goes on in this place...."

[from the back] "Scott, are you talking to the customers again? If you're talking to the customers again I'm going to kick your ass...."

via Are We Lumberjacks? Thanks for this funny post that G.M. will appreciate.

In continuing news on the subject from NewsBusters:

New Republic Refuses to Retract Thomas 'Reports'

Left Says U.S. Soldiers Routinely Murder Officers

Many people on the Left have convinced themselves that Pat Tillman was not killed by friendly fire but murdered as part of an American military conspiracy. (See Leftist Conspiracy Theory.) In checking back at a site that furthers this idea, a commenter calling himself "Hans Auff" shares his wisdom based upon his service in Viet Nam.

If you fought in Viet Nam and/or know something about the military, perhaps you can analyze "Hans Auff's" remarks and tell us if he is just putting together urban legends or recounting his personal mis-deeds or is closer to plain nuts.

They did it in Viet Nam, too.

Okay, let's all pull out our old tunics. I served in the Army, late Vietnam. After all the flag waving and talk of fighting the commies over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here had, as the same assinine invocation has currently, became a joke. Just as it is.

Well unless human beings in uniform and under combat stress has suddenly and radically changed then I would point out that the majority of US Army officers killed in Vietnam were killed by their own freaking troops in their own units. Not by the Vietcong, and not by friendly fire. (What a nice name). Friendly fire in Nam meant a US made handgrenade rolled into your tent at 2am without the pin.

Continue reading "Left Says U.S. Soldiers Routinely Murder Officers"

Posted by Woody M. at 07:10 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Leftist Conspiracy Theory or Satire? [Updatedx2]

Is this article real from the sick Left or sick satire from The Onion ?

Who Ordered the Execution of
NFL/Army Hero Pat Tillman?

It’s almost too depressing to mention again, but let’s recap the Pat Tillman revelations from Army medical examiners and internal Pentagon reports released last week and find out what happens when famous football stars turned Army Heroes become anti-war critics:

▪ He was shot three times in the forehead at close range with an American M-16.
▪ This was after he was shot in the chest, legs and hand.
▪ And this was after he screamed to the “friendlies” that he was Pat Tillman and please stop shooting him.
▪ But they didn’t; they executed him.
▪ They were Americans...

▪ In his writings — Tillman wrote constantly in letters and diaries and e-mails — the NFL star who became an Army Ranger after 9/11 had concluded the Afghanistan War was fake and the Iraq War was a criminal setup.
▪ The Pentagon still has his diary that he kept with him in Afghanistan, where he was killed, and they won’t release it to his family.....

It's real from the Left.

It's pretty sad when you mistake the wacko conclusions of the Left for a put-on from a satirical paper. It's pretty sad when the Left tries and fails to use logic to come up with plausible conspiracy theories. And, it's pretty sick when the Left taints the image of a dead soldier to further its politics of hate.

[Update]

Be sure to check out the comments of readers at the source of that article above.

'Hard not to agree that three rounds fired by the same shooter hitting in a neat pattern at the same point is impossible. How about three rounds from different shooters at different postions hitting simultaneously in nearly the identical place. Sound like a firing squad to me.'

'It saddens me to think that the military is so monolithically ignorant and hostile towards dissent. I don't support the war, and s--- like this makes it real hard to support the troops as well.'

'This story will be the turning point. Its so easily understood and so revolting on the most basic levels, if the Democrats are not able to package this in a way that the media can deliver in sound bites they have no hope as a party and we have no hope as a country.'

'I totally wish that his brother, who also enlisted and is also a total badass, would go ape-s--- on some civvies at the Pentagon and see how far they support the f------ troops. Bas--s. This p----s me off.'

'I assumed you were conservative because of the following:
From which I can tell your from Conroe Tx, probably also a good indicator of conservatism.'

(That last one was for G.M. and our Texas friends.)

These comments are from people who consider themselves intellectually superior to caveman conservatives and want to run everyone's lives. Did you know that Bush bombed the WTC and the New Orleans dikes, too?

[Update 2]

Do you think that the Left can't get any crazier? They're still at it with this next posting and the links at the bottom of it.

dept. of implausible denial
Rumsfeld: 'I Do Not Recall Ordering Hit On Pat Tillman'

Ward Churchill Was Right By Golly Syndrome (WCWRBGS) Replaces BDS As The Diagnosis Du Jure

Once in a blue moon, so the saying goes, meaning of course, not very often. And so it is with comments on blogs that just deserve their own posts, if for no other reason then to tell the commenter right up front "You couldn't be more wrong if you tried really hard."

Such is a comment my co-blogger Woody received on his post Easier to Fire a QB than a Tenured Professor posted just a few hours before this one. You can read Woody's post and the comments below or by clicking on the link immediately above, but either way, the comment I'm referring to is, in part, as follows:

I believe that the quote within the wikipedia is germain to this topic:

"To be clear: the issues here have nothing to do with the quality of Ward Churchill’s scholarship or his professional credentials. However one views his choice of words or specific arguments, he is being put in the dock solely for his radical critique of U.S. history and present-day policy in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. Apparently, 9/11 is now the third rail of American intellectual life: to critically probe into its causes and to interrogate the international role of the United States is treated as heresy; those inquiring can be denied forums, careers, and even personal safety. . .The Churchill case is not an isolated incident but a concentrated example of a well-orchestrated campaign launched in the name of “academic freedom” and “balance” which in fact aims to purge the universities of more radical thinkers and oppositional thought generally, and to create a climate of intimidation.

– An Open Letter from Concerned Academics"

He may be wrong, but you might first want to read his essay. I thought he was a bit extremist, but I do agree with his quote of Malcolm X. I have always believed that the events of 9/11 had everthing to do with chickens coming home to roost. That thought is sour medicine , but true nonetheless.

Now, this comment is one of the most fatuous comments I've seen in a long time and I've seen a bunch. I've even been known to make one or two myself (No!!! say it isn't so!...ed.... Sorry, sad to say it is indeed true...GM) But I digress, the reality of the matter is that the commenter is so far off base I have to wonder if he has been infected with BDS or WCWRBGS (New Diagnosis: Ward Churchill Was Right By Golly Syndrome) or maybe both.

First, our delerious commenter uses a "Wikipedia" pronouncement to prove that Ward C. was fired because he called the victims of Al Qaeda "Little Eichmann's" implying of course that in their deskbound duties as part of the collective corporate structure, they were as culpible in the slaughter of millions as was Eichmann. Now, there can be an awful lot of discussion as to whether Churchill was correct or not, but I have seen the ovens in Germany, I've seen up close and personal the concentration camps and though I may be mistaken, I doubt that Ward Churchill has. To even come close to comparing Eichmann to the victims of 9/11 is idiocy beyond belief, and that it was uttered by a supposed academic makes the violation even more egregious. To claim that Churchill was fired because of this supposed comment is equally stupid. It may be true, and probably is true, nay is absolutely true that his comment "precipitated" an investigation into his supposed scholarship that is a far cry from being "fired for the comment." To believe otherwise in face of charges of

Churchill spent his tenured days posing as a Native American (he isn't)

a serial plagiarist with a MA in communications, not a PhD in history

his questionable body of academic work—like his claim the U.S. Army embarked on a program of genocide by deliberately infecting Indians with small-pox. Sounds plausible, but, according to this investigation by the Rocky Mountain News, not supported by the available evidence. "In fact, the pages of various books he refers to not only don't buttress his argument," wrote the News, "they contradict it." UCLA professor Russell Thornton, a scholar of Native American history, calls Churchill's writings on the smallpox epidemic "just out-and-out fabrication."

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys"--or was it "sand niggers" that week?--in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance.

100,000 killed in the closing days of the war by "hyper-lethal types of ordnance"? (As opposed, I suppose, to moderately lethal ordinance.) Easy to understand "why they hate us," I suppose. Except that Churchill's casualty figures are off by about 99,700.

It is this sort of thing that resulted in Churchill's termination; he was not, as this Newsday headline says, "fired over [his] controversial 9/11 essay." If this were true, it would be a clear violation of Churchill's academic freedom—a freedom to write amateurish, semi-coherent philippics comparing sinister capitalists "braying into their cell phones" to the fascist "desk killers" responsible for Auschwitz. His Eichmann comments surely precipitated the accusations of academic misconduct, but so what?

...is to believe that the Twin Towers came down because it was an inside job and the Jews weren't on duty that day and that... Ahhh, crap! how can supposedly intelligent people be so blind to the shortcomings of someone just because he is a "revolutionary academic" if indeed he is that? Ward Churchill was a poseur, a scoundrel, an affected, artificial, bogus, counterfeit, fabricator, fraudulent, phony scholar. To pretend (or to believe) that he was anything else and then to wrap that up in a phoney "free speech" defense is to make a mockery of real academics who work hard, teach their students well, don't fake or fabricate, who publish scholarly and learned articles and who uphold everything that is expressed in the motto of say a school like Harvard: "Veritas" (truth) or the University of Texas' motto taken from Mirabeau B. Lamar (the second President of the Republic of Texas) - " A cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy."

And now, gentle readers, we come to the last part of the comment that needs a serious fisking and that is "I have always believed that the events of 9/11 had everthing to do with chickens coming home to roost. That thought is sour medicine , but true nonetheless." Oh please commentor, surely you can't possibly buy that basest of canards? Ho-Kay, lets see, first, if it is "chickens coming home etc." than it can be for one of two reasons. First, because the foreign policy of the United States precipitated the attack. Second because the actions of George Bush (father or son) is the proximate cause. Lets take those one at a time (although I could be fatuous here and say that the answer is "bullshit.")

Al Qaeda and it's fellow traveling islamofascistic running dogs of the inheritors of Adolf have been at war with the west for ... well, for a long time. As Baron Bodissey and Dymphna say on their marvelous blog Gates of Vienna

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.

The islamofascists expanded that war to a war against the United States in 1979 when the Islamic Republic of Iran invaded the United States Embassy in Tehran; an act of war by any standard neither George H.W. Bush nor George W. Bush was president at the time. Jimmah Cahtuh was I believe. Since that act of war, the running dogs of Al Qaeda via their fearless leader Osama bin Laden has "declared war" on the US. We were attacked

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.

The above doesn't include the killing of Mr. Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro, the attacks on London, Glasgow, Madrid, Paris, etc., etc., etc. So the commenters sentence "That thought is sour medicine , but true nonetheless" shows either an incomplete understanding of the world stage and the machinations of islamofascism or a specious attack on reason. I would prefer to believe that it is an incomplete understanding of world forces and the real motive behind the islamofascist mindset. It really is a new phase of a very old war, and the sooner that is learned, the sooner this war will be over.

Chicken's coming home to roost indeed, except in Ward Churchill's case, it happens to be accurate.

Toss Your Sun Tan Lotion

Today's left-wing attack against the evils of mankind concerns over-use and waste of a vital natural resource, which reduces the amount available to other life forms. What is this limited resource? The Sun. No, really.

Human greed takes
lion's share of solar energy

Humans are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

...An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the (research) paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

Close your curtains and throw away your sun tan lotion. Save the Sun's energy for the rest of the world to use what you do not. And, remember, the Sun has a remaining life of only five billion years, so let's be wise to conserve it.

Tomorrow's crisis...we use the Moon too much for romancing. Leftist insanity never ends.

But, tell the left to give mankind credit. We turn off the sun when we go to bed at night, and we'll consider ending daylight savings time so that their hallucination plants get more sun.

Death Of A Bad Bill

One of the greatest courtroom dramas of all time was Anatomy of a Murder., and over the last 48 years, I must have watched it at least a dozen times. Jimmy Stewart plays a small town lawyer who gets Ben Gazarra off of a murder charge by getting the jury to believe in an "irresistible impulse."

An Irresistible Impulse, one that far to many senators succumbed to in authoring and/or supporting a bad bill. Last week, America watched enthralled as the United States Senate debated, and ultimately killed the latest iteration of immigration reform. Earlier "comprehensive" reforms occurred in 1952 and again another in 1986. In the 1986 signing, President Ronald Reagan noted:

Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people."

"The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." [emphasis added]

"Regain control of our borders." Well, that didn't happen as any one with a lick of sense could have told you (and many of us did.)

The fact of the matter was that when you handed out citizenship to earlier illegal immigrants, you did exactly what Pavlov proved would happen. Reward a behavior and you will get more of the same, in this case somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 20 million additional illegal immigrants since 1986. That should be tattooed on the inside of the eyelids of every man and woman that wants to be a United States Senator, let alone on the inside of the eyelids of each and every current U.S. Senator.

The latest "comprehensive" immigration bill was fraught with difficulty, hence, the multiple votes on amendments to the bill. Each amendment as proposed was to "remove a significant fault" or to add a "significant enhancement" either to the bill, or conversely from the bill, and the American people were up in arms.

The media kept telling us that a "majority" of Americans wanted a comprehensive immigration bill, and that is probably true, but like always, the devil is in the details. Just prior to the final ignominious defeat of the bill, a Rasmussen poll showed some 70 + percent of those polled did not like this particular bill or its multitude of provisions for an alphabetized system of visas. Indeed, they were probably perplexed by the bill.

George W. Bush, Harry Reid, John McCain (who probably tossed his presidential candidacy into the toilet) and Ted Kennedy all fought for the bill and ultimately, the people said "no." And it is a good thing they did. As I commented on another site (see, I don't spend ALL of my time here):

I’m surprised (as perhaps were other) that Marc, who touts polls left and right doesn’t mention that the most recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that a majority of Americans (presumably legal ones) do not indeed support “the Bush backed plan to grant legal status” to the illegals rather, a whopping 74% oppose this bill, many on just those grounds (and this includes Democrats, Republicans, independents and not a few legal immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanic countries.).

You can call them undocumented workers, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, or as the sublimely stupid Harry Reid said “undocumented Americans,” but the fact of the matter is that the majority of them are hear [sic] because of the last “flawed bill.” A flawed bill is not “better than nothing,” a flawed bill is bad law. [emphasis added, link to the exact quote added]

You read correctly, Harry Reid said, and I quote:

This week, we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong. [emphasis added]

By the way, Dennis Miller did a wonderful take-down of "shallow Harry Reid" here (via Glenn Reynolds) but I digress. Those who were interested in establishing a "legacy" by passing this bill were shot down by the blogosphere (H/T to Danny Glover) both the left and the right calling it a bad bill, by individuals of the left, right, center and no stance at all wrote, telephoned, faxed, emailed and otherwise let their Senator know that this bill was no damn good, and 50 Senators responded. Now, despite what you have heard, the vote was NOT to defeat the bill, the bill was "defeated" because Harry Reid pulled the bill from further consideration (feeling, I guess, that discretion is the better part of valor here). The actual vote was merely to cease debate or not to cease debate. If the vote had been for cloture (that is ceasing debate) then the Senate could have voted in the affirmative (passed the bill - in which case it would go to conference committee to hammer out any differences between it and any bill passed by the house) or voted in the negative which would have effectively killed the current bill.

A vote to continue debate would have added amendments, removed amendments or otherwise bastardized an already bastardized bill. But the underlying principle of rewarding behavior remains unchanged. Once again, gentle reader, if you reward (visas, citizenship, voting rights, pathways, what ever you want to call amnesty without calling it amnesty) a behavior (illegal immigration), you get more of the same behavior. The are only a few real ways to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants (and don't call them undocumented Americans please).

Adopt a draconian set of laws modeled almost exactly after Mexico's laws (and wouldn't that be a fine kettle of fish?)

Fines and prison sentences for anyone caught crossing the border a second time after already being deported once for illegal crossing.

Fines and prison sentences for those hiring more than a few illegal immigrants (big business has always supported illegal immigration, it allows them to pay substandard wages).

Changing our constitution to eliminate the "anchor baby" phenomenon, thus, if you're illegal, any offspring born in the United States would not gain citizenship by dent of being born here.

Please understand, I am not advocating any of these positions, I'm merely saying that we will never gain control of illegal immigration unless we adopt some manner of gaining control of the borders and the American people understood that, even if 45 Senators did not. It seems as though, for once, 50 senators listened to either their conscience or their constituents. And I'd have to guess that in the outpouring of disdain to the U.S. Senate an awful lot of Americans succumbed to an "irresistible impulse."

Do Higher Taxes Solve Global Warming?

If you like higher taxes, be sure to support the fight against global warming and support politicians who see global warming as a priority issue. Coming to a country near you, before it goes on the road to the states....

Greens' climate plan sees 12-cent tax at the pumps
Carbon toll is price to avert environmental 'catastrophe'

Ottawa - The Green party wants Canadian drivers to pay an extra 12 cents a litre at the gas pumps as the price of averting environmental "catastrophe." Leader Elizabeth May is boasting that her party is the only one politically brave enough to call for carbon taxes that would discourage automobile use....

This next part is a real hoot.

"We will use those carbon taxes to reduce taxes elsewhere."

Yeahhhh, right. Never seen that happen.

The political leader also likened the gobal warming challenge to that of Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon. Of course, as I remember, the predecessors of this bunch opposed the race to the moon saying that the money should be given to the poor, instead. Hey, let's give the carbon tax to the poor!

Or, we could simply ask the oil companies to increase the price of gasoline by twelve cents and ask them to use that money to study global warming themselves, rather than have government handle the collections, spending, and research? Such studies would avoid the middle man and would have as much credibility.

This is just the start. To fight unproven global warming created by mankind, there will be on-going demands by politicians for more taxes and mandated pollution controls of questionable value that will drain companies and individuals of money.

This isn't a fight on global warming. It's a fight against the economies of the West and a fight to control the finances of nations. And, the "problem" will never go away and the taxes will only increase. I've never seen a crisis that liberals solved. They depend upon them for votes and taxes, and solving anything would end their source of power.

GW can stand for "global warming," but it can also stand for "grabbing wealth." Watch your wallets when liberals get causes.

Global Warming Skeptic Beaten into Submission

Just disagree with any bunch of liberals and the attacks become so vicious and relentless that a person will agree to anything to survive and keep his job. It's the liberals' form of retribution using sophisticated torture. Of course, the liberals will demand the "customary apology" so that you don't dare disagree again. Such has been the saga of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin over global warming.

NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming

...NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he said.

Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem.

“I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his remarks ignorant. ...

The last sentence is somewhat of an understatement. They taught him what happens if you disagree with "scientific consensus."

In other news:

They call this a consensus? - Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

...Today, Al Gore is making the same (1992) claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

...More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet.

Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

...Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled.

...What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. (T)he IPCC Secretariat responded..."The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

...Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused. ...

Global warming is a looney religion of the Left. Let's hope that rational people can hold out long enough for this "crisis" to pass and before we bankrupt the globe over something that demands scientific proof--not political consensus.

I'm sorry for the abuse that NASA's chief, Michael Griffin, had to take, but his courage brought sincere doubts about global warming to the surface and may provoke others to stand up to "consensus."

Buying Liberal Offsets? This Is The Place!

Are you sometimes ill at ease - even in Massachusetts - with the liberal tone of political discourse? GM and the WideAwakes are ready to help with the sale of Liberal Offset Certificates.

From the description by Kender on EBay -

Yes that's right, you can still say that the War in Iraq is wrong and as long as you have bought a sufficient amount of offsets your patriotism cannot be questioned. Walk around freely yelling "Bush lied - people died" and if you are confronted by a conservative, whip out your Liberal Offset Certificate and put them in their place. In fact you can spout almost any nonsense you want and as long as you have bought a Liberal Offset, nobody can say a thing.

Here's how it works. When you hold liberal beliefs many people believe you are simply insane, and Liberal Offsets counter that simply by taking the money you have paid for the Offset and...well, much like Carbon Credits nobody is really sure how paying some Voluntary Guilt Tax is supposed to offset the pollution you create, but believe us it does. Just ask Al Gore.

Liberal Offsets work the same way.

When you buy a Liberal Offset that allows you to spout insane viewpoints Justin from Right ON The Right, Kender from Wide Awakes Radio and, indeed the ENTIRE Wide Awakes Radio crew will continue to hold view points that are based in logic and argue from a position of Common Sense and Patriotism.

It is that simple.

Now you can hold positions that directly contradict each other and not have to explain the disparity between them.

Each Liberal Offset Certificate comes personalized with the name of your choice. For a limited time each Liberal Offset you buy will have 4 FREE Offsets added to each order, for a Grand Total of 5 Liberal Offsets for the amazing low price of $5.00 plus shipping. That is 125 hours of argument for each certificate. That should be enough to last until the 2008 Presidential election. Handling Charges are included in shipping.

Peter Porcupine, Right on the Right, Mr. Ogre of the Carolinas and the other Wide Awakes will continue to pump rational argument into the hyperbaric chamber of liberal thought, in order to keep balance and rationality alive. For instance, Peter Porcupine will even provide cogent arguments agaisnt the banning of dihydrogen monoxide, and other such substances.

A link to obtain your certificate is HERE - Kender will help keep the progressive movement from spining off any number of cliffs with this handy trade-off.

The Left Loses / Reacts Characteristically

Gore and Kerry are both defeated by Bush, and the left and their candidates go nuts, deny the results, and spend years trying to destroy our president. The Mexican leftist loses his presidential election, so he tells supporters to ignore the legitimate government while he sets up a parallel one. Now, the French left loses, so they riot--spurred on by "suggestions of concern" from the losing candidate. Just think what could be accomplished if they channeled all of that hate into something productive. These are supposed to be civilized countries. What is wrong with these people?

Sarkozy's election victory marred by riots

Street violence took some of the shine off victory in the French elections for new president Nicolas Sarkozy. Far-left activists had running battles with police across France as 270 people were taken in for questioning and 367 parked vehicles were torched.

Riot police fired tear gas into a crowd gathered at the Place de la Bastille in Paris as news of Sarkozy's victory came through.

Small bands of youths hurled stones and other objects at police and bared their backsides at riot officers. Other fights with the police broke out in Toulouse, Lyon, Rennes and Nantes. Two police unions said firebombs targeted schools and recreation centres in several towns in the Essonne region just south of Paris.

BFM TV described rioters as "militant anarchists" apparently upset by the victory of a man of the right.

What will happen now? Well, I guess that we can expect the police to come under attack for their response, just as they are in this country--another typical reaction of the left.

Keep reading to see some of the reactions about the French left's rioting from commenters at the article's site, which adds some sanity to the analysis.

Continue reading "The Left Loses / Reacts Characteristically"

The Beginning of the Undoing of the Democrats

You could see it coming. Democrats should have been careful with the partnerships that they forged in recent elections, as they put short-term gains over long-term considerations. Now, the Democrats could be locked into an agenda dictated by radical-left organizations, with money and influence, that the Democrats are not otherwise inclined or able to make into law.

MoveOn.org is not going away and the Democrats are going to have to appease them to get their desired support, or incumbents could face stern opposition in the primaries from more radical candidates who could win the nominations but get clobbered in the general elections.

With New Clout, Antiwar Groups Push Democrats (Selections)

WASHINGTON, May 4 — Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.

Over the last four months, the Iraq deliberations in Congress have lurched from a purely symbolic resolution rebuking the president’s strategy to timetables for the withdrawal of American troops. Behind the scenes, an elaborate political operation, organized by a coalition of antiwar groups and fine-tuned to wrestle members of Congress into place one by one, has helped nudge the debate forward.

But there are tensions in the relationship between the groups, which banded together earlier this year under the umbrella of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and the Democratic leadership.

On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.

“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

I hate it for them.

World Religions [Corrected]

Today, as the Left decries an Old Testament verse on homosexuality that was read over an airport public address system, I wonder why we heard nothing from them about a recent outrage from another religion (not Islam, as originally thought.)

Teenage Girl Stoned to Death

A 17-year-old girl has been stoned to death in Iraq because she loved a teenage boy of the wrong religion.

...Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy.

...A large crowd watched as eight or nine men stormed the house and dragged Miss Aswad into the street. There they hurled stones at her for half an hour until she was dead.

The stoning happened last month, but only came to light yesterday with the release of the Internet video. ...[More]

I'm sure that there is a perfectly good explanation. But, the Left needs to take care of the Christians first.

Harry Reid - Red Shoed Bozo?

American Interests vs Party Pandering Power? What a conundrum that must have been for poor old Harry (Idjit - Nevada) Reid. On the one hand, to appear statesman-like in one's pronouncements, on the other a deep need to appear to be in charge and to garner the kind of ink that Nancy Pelosi did by acting as though she were the Secretary of State conferring with a thug like Assad. You'd think that old Harry would be a little bit more circumspect, but nooooooo, he has to act like the fool. In fact, the Review Journal, a Las Vegas, Nevada paper noted in its opinion column:

The Democratic strategy to use the ongoing violence in Iraq to their political advantage in the run-up to the 2008 elections requires some skill and nuance. But it's growing harder to believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- Nevada's own -- actually possesses those skills.

The Democratic strategy is anything but straightforward.

Sen. Reid and his colleagues know there is much political hay to be made by criticizing President Bush's planning and conduct of the post-war occupation. But they also know that while "cut our losses and pull out" plays well in Democratic caucuses, it failed in the Connecticut general election in 2006, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his anti-surrender stance handily defeated end-the-war candidate Ned Lamont -- even though Sen. Lieberman had to run as an independent to pull it off.

That's the kind of "poll" that really counts.

Thus, the Democrats' careful strategy requires them to appear to oppose Mr. Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq (to please their pacifist base), without taking any concrete, "binding" actions to change the status quo.

Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the Clown."

Reid, of course, being the wishy-washy pol that he is, tried to backtrack almost immediately and blame his critics for his misstatements:

What he actually meant to say is that Iraq is lost if we continue to follow President Bush's strategy, the Democratic leader explained -- while once more carefully resisting the temptation to put forward any better strategy.

Sen. Reid then attempted the old cushion shot -- "deny everything and make counter-accusations" -- as he sought to shift the blame to those who had criticized him the day before.

"The partisans who launched attacks on my comments are the same ones who continue to support a failed strategy that hurts our troops," Sen. Reid said.

Ah. But it doesn't "hurt our troops" to tell them -- and the enemy -- that our Marines and G.I.s are risking their lives in a lost cause before they even suit up and start their engines for this morning's patrol?

Reid also said: "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats." Damn, could'a fooled me!

Surrender?

Alaa from The Mesopotamian (via Instapundit):

However, between the extreme course of total withdrawal and the present detailed involvement with daily operations; there is a middle way that few are talking about. Complete abandon and retreat by the Americans would indeed constitute defeat and a victory for the enemy, and would turn the tables completely and ignite a larger conflagration in the region. On the other hand the level of involvement of American and other allied foreign troops with detailed street to street policing, house searches etc. etc. should not continue indefinitely. . . . What must be realized is that as long as the U.S. is strategically present, the enemy has no hope of achieving any of his objectives. This enemy knows this only too well; and his prime objective is to bring about this withdrawal and retreat by all means. He pins his hopes on the internal situation in the U.S., and this is his most potent weapon. Therefore most of his actions and attacks are basically publicity stunts aimed primarily at the MSM and American and western public opinion." [emphasis added]

And given Harry Reid's stupidity (his we've lost the war in Iraq comment) and falling for the "publicity stunts", I'd have to agree with Alaa. I wonder why the left can't see this? More stupidity or just a will to disbelieve or perhaps even Bush Derangement Syndrome taken to psychotic levels? Or, maybe a combination of all three?

Hillary Rides To The Rescue!

Obama shows up in Selma to comemorate the civil rights movement. Not satisfied with her attempt to get Obama for the defection of David Geffen, Hillary shows up with a faux Southern accent. In fact, Hillary is in a dither because of Obamas entry into the fray!

Then comes along Don Imus with his trash talk calling the Rutgers ladies basketball team "...nappy headed ho's." Now, I don't know about you, but I find that comment offensive on a number of levels, not the least of which is as a father. I can only imagine what those young ladies (and their speaking up show that they are classy young ladies indeed) fathers must have felt; as a dad myself I would have wanted to punch Imus in the nose just to hear the "splat."

Obama was somewhat delayed in his condemnation of Imus and his mouth, but still faster than Hillary:

Her Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, was faster out of the gate, with this to say on Monday: “The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds. With a public platform, comes a trust. As far as I’m concerned, he violated that trust.”

But old Hillary may have gone one better, with a bit of pandering that is not to be believed. Oh Hillary, have you no shame at all?

None? Not a shred? Zero, zip, zilch, nada?

Has Obama caught Lieberman cooties?

I get amused at the left as exemplified by the Kos Kids. I know they can't help it, and I'm sure that they aren't deliberately attempting to provide me with entertainment, but I do get amused and I suspect that they have absolutely no clue that they are. These self styled partisans fall into the class of what I call "True Believers," that group of people that put their particular brand of politics out front without any attempt at rational discussion, they do it simply because it feels right to them. That is to say, they truly believe in their POV which has not necessarily been rationally arrived at.

Their stance on the supporters/detractors of the current war in Iraq is a good example. I for one, believe that the effort in Iraq is a noble one, but I can also believe that there are those who opposed the effort from the beginning out of careful rational deliberation. There is nothing inherently wrong with being anti-war. No one perhaps, it is said, is more anti-war than the soldier and I was once a soldier, my father was a soldier, my grandfather and great-grandfather were soldiers. Having said that, a soldier also knows that there are times when war is the best option, of several bad options. As John Stuart Mill noted:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

But I digress, the Kos Kids are, for whatever reason anti-war and disdain, nay, lothe anyone who disagrees with them. They took on Joe Lieberman and lost, they supported John Kerry and lost, they supported Barack Obama for saying he was against the war from the beginning and John Edwards for "apologizing" for his vote for the war. That was until this Sunday. Kos notes:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

Then Kos states flatly:

What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach.

Instead of threatening Bush with even more restrictions and daring him to veto funding for the troops out of pique, Barack just surrendered to him.

And the Kos Kids went to town! I won't link to Kos, you can look it up if you've a mind to, but trust me on this, Kos and his minions will chew up and spit out any Democrat who dares to leave the Kossack Commune on the issue of the War. Obama did so when he noted the truth of real-politic that the American People will not tolerate abandonment of the troops.

The Democrats have put forth a multitude of "plans" to withdraw from Iraq, none of which had a snowball's chance until they larded up one "non-binding" plan with pork to get sufficient votes. As Charlie Rangel noted to Tim Russert:

Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and other's because we didn't go far enough. So a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there…And I didn't care what was in that bill if there was anything to slow down, to say what the American people said in the last election, ‘get out of Iraq.’”

Mr. Rangel is wrong, the anti-war sentiment is not there. There is however, a feeling that the Bush Administration had botched the war and the Democrats were exceptionally good at exploiting that feeling. But they have, I think, misread the results and now, they know it. That is why they cannot get sufficient votes to force a withdrawal. Indeed, they really don't want to because the Democrats know with a certainty what will happen if we withdraw. The bloodbath will make the Khemer Rouge look like saints and the sectarian violence seen today will seem like a picnic in the park.

Obama is, at least, cognizant of that fact and stated his take on reality. Now, at least, there is insufficient support in Congress to override President Bush's threatened veto and if the Democrats should override it given some circumstance in the future, the "loss" of Iraq to the islamofascists will be directly on their shoulders. Kos could care less, he and his followers are true believers and will not tolerate any other point of view. One comment (out of over 700) in particular struck me:

The Lieberman influence leapt to mind the instant I read this. It's as if Obama's lips moved, but Holy Joe's whiny, nasal voice came out.

I don't know that this can be attributed to bad advice, however. Obama has always tended to be overcautious and sensitive to whatever the prevailing "centrist" opinion of the moment happens to be. In short, he tends to triangulate a bit, though to a lesser extent than Hillary does. Where is the boldness and willingness to challenge the political establishment that we expect from our candidates?

If Obama were truly the champion of a "new" style of politics, he would have the courage to stand with the rest of the Democrats in fighting bush's plans, instead of giving up. The last thing we need from our candidates is an attitude of appeasement towards an unpopular president whose position has been rejected by the vast majority of Americans. [emphasis added]

Kos and company have not, nor will they ever, forgive Joe Lieberman, one of the most liberal of all Democrats, for taking a contrary position on the war and anyone that even remotely echos a Lieberman position seems to have suddenly caught Lieberman's "cooties." How juvenile!

A tip O' The GM Derby to Brazilian Neocon a new found friend.

Welcome Instapundit readers, take a look around and enjoy yourselves.

The Penn Is Mightier Than The Sword Pencil(neck)

Sean Penn, actor extraordinaire (at least to some) appeared in Oakland, Ca. Saturday, with some very unsurprising (given his leftward tilt) things to say.

Let's make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families," he said. "The money that's spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa and care for our veterans. Iraq is not our toilet. It's a country of human beings whose lives that were once oppressed by Saddam are now in Dante's Inferno."

"...once oppressed by Saddam..." Which you had no problem with in December 2002.

OK Mr. Penn, lets see... I support the cops, but not crime busting. I support the Teachers, but not education. I support Actors... Nah, too many are too far left, including you sir.

The Left: We Support the Troops (The Enemy's?)

So, the Left supports the troops but opposes the war? Funny, this video gives me the impression that they oppose both. The tip off was burning a soldier in effigy. Watch it and decide for yourself if they support our armed forces, but be forewarned...the video contains offensive language. Well, what did you expect? After all, they are from the Left.

Radicals burn an effigy of a U.S. soldier and American flag

Pretty offensive, isn't it? Of course, the protestors are pretty stupid, too.

It's ironic that they used a petroleum product to fuel the fire. Where do they think that we get most of our oil based products?

Besides being crude (not as in oil) and anti-U.S., what is it about the Left that they engage in endless chants and use trite slogans? In case you're curious as to where they get their chants (and, who isn't?!), check out these samples:

Continue reading "The Left: We Support the Troops (The Enemy's?)"

Pres. Bush Tells Dems to Take It or Leave It

Bush Warns Dems (Selections)

WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down. Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added that federal prosecutors work for him and it is natural to consider replacing them. "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper," the president said.

Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," Bush said.

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies—but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

Bush said he would aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides.

"If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said. "I'm sorry the situation has gotten to where it's got, but that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know there's a lot of politics in this town."

As Scooter Libby learned, the Democrats will try to hang you any way that they can, and it doesn't matter if the offense is just having a bad memory on something that wasn't a crime. There's no reason to expose other members of the Executive Branch to a minefield of hidden and sweeping legal interpretations on issues unrelated to the duties of Congress.

We knew that Democrats would start one investigation after another once they controlled Congress. Now they have put politics and mud slinging as higher priorities than dealing with Iraq. Remember which issue the American voters placed highest in the fall elections? I guess that once the Democrats fooled the people into voting for them on one thing, they will now do what the party wants rather than what the people elected them to do.

America Loves a Winner

When I watched "Patton" again the other night for the upteenth time, I thought about its opening speech and that Americans would do better to take Gen. Patton's advice from back then rather than that of the Democrats today. Patton's speech is worth reading and hearing to remind us of American pride and our will to win. The actual written words and the video recreation can still inspire those of us today who want our nation to succeed.

Many forgot Gen. Patton's WWII advice during the Viet Nam conflict, and those people who let us down were not the soldiers fighting. Today, we face a similar problem with people who put their politics above our nation's success and reputation. Just so that others of us can remember and appreciate the message of winning, let's take time to absorb it one more time.

The Famous Patton Speech

Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players.

Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

Here is a link to the entire actual and unedited speech of Gen. Patton to his troops along with an interesting and detailed description of it. It comes from the first chapter of a book titled The Unknown Patton by Charles M. Province. Take the time to read it and think about what this should mean for us today.

General Patton's Address to the Troops

Next, view the below recreation of the speech in the film's opening scene. As fine a performance as George C. Scott provides, I can only imagine what the real speech must have been like and how it motivated our troops and made them determined to win.

There's nothing that I can add. The speech says it best. Just think about how this applies to us today.

That's all.

Big Government Encroaching

Big government knows no bounds. Recently, we've discussed speech codes, forcing a total switch to flourescent lights, in Australia they want people to cut down on showers (unlike France where showers are rare), and now they are coming back to reduced speed limits--this time on the sacred German autobahns where no speed limits exist--all for the environment.

Maybe the E.U. was worried that Germans could invade France before France had time to raise the white flags.

I tell you. It's just the beginning. Big government leftists will keep making up every way they can to tell other people how to live. It's all for the environment...and, oh yes, the children...not for them, of course.

Democrats - Lying Pansies [Updated]

Democrats have no backbone--and lie. They are ruled by MoveOn but give phony reasons to do the bidding of the left-wing radical group.

Nevada Dems Nix Fox Debate

The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to a letter released late Friday from state party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev).

...Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly compared Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, to Osama bin Laden, "went too far," and prompted Nevada Democrats to end the partnership.

...A statement released Friday night from Fox Vice President David Rhodes said: "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe, out-of-state in interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party. In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, it's clearly the case in Nevada."

Fox officials also argued that Ailes' remark about Obama, made at the Radio and TV News Directors Foundation Awards, was meant to poke fun at President Bush, not the Illinois senator.

Of course, the Democrats wouldn't say a word if the Republicans boycotted liberal media that said something bad about them--which is most of them most of the time. No, of course not.

[Updates] - More details below:

Continue reading "Democrats - Lying Pansies [Updated]"

Gotta Love Those Democrats

If it wasn't for the pathos of it all, I would be laughing at the Democrats over their tussle with what to do about Iraq. The Senior other Senator from New York (the one that is not running for President) Chuck "Dagger In The Heart" Schumer (read "Joke and Dagger Dept.--II here) noted:

"We are keeping faith with the voters asked for in November 2006..."

and whats more, he really believes it. The same article notes that the Dimocrats Democrats have not been able to agree on what keeping faith means. After all, in the Senate, the Democrats have floated no less than 17 different plans to "end the war" in Iraq and cannot agree among themselves what plan would be best; only one of the 17 even coming close to a vote. Their allies in the Media note that the evil Rethuglicans Republicans in the Senate "...last month used a procedural move to block debate of that nonbinding resolution against Mr. Bush's plan for a surge of 21,500 more troops into Iraq," and that move has been lambasted by the left as "shutting down debate." Of course, in a Republican controlled Senate, the Democrats used the same tactics a number of times but then it was "statesmanship" when the Democrats "...have used the filibuster -- or, more accurately, the threat of the filibuster -- to prevent floor votes on 10 others."

But, I digress. The Democrats are unable to corral their "Blue Dog" members into agreement that the war must come to a halt:

Senate and House Democrats yesterday announced competing legislation that for the first time would set deadlines to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq -- by fall 2008 -- provoking a veto threat from the White House.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said her chamber's measure, which accelerates the timetable for a pullout if the administration fails to certify that Iraq has met certain benchmarks for progress, will be attached to the nearly $100 billion in supplemental spending that President Bush is seeking this year for fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

"Our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan," the California Democrat said.

So, it would seem that, at least from Pelosi's point of view that there is nothing wrong with going to war against the Islamofascists, just do it in Afghanistan and not Iraq.

What exactly does Speaker Pelosi think will happen then? That, sending all our troops to Afghanistan will cause Al Qaeda to throw up their hands and surrender? Cause an end to the sectarian violence in Iraq which is of course, supported by both Iran and Syria? Does she really think that the war against Islamofascism is ONLY about a ragtag bunch of thugs named Al Qaeda, and if so, that none of her fellow Democrats have any other ideas about this global war?

Kimberly Strassel has more on Pelosi's struggle with her "Blue Dogs."

The meltdown among House Democrats over Iraq is rightly being
described as the first big test of Nancy Pelosi's leadership. It's
also an early example of just how much political damage the antiwar
left is capable of inflicting on their new speaker.
Ms. Pelosi has been backed into a tight corner over President Bush's
$100 billion request for war funding. Hoping to quell a revolt from
a liberal bloc that wants out of Iraq, pronto, the speaker unveiled
a new, new plan yesterday that includes a timetable for withdrawal--
to begin as early as July. Ms. Pelosi needs to win this vote, the
first real showdown over Iraq. But it's becoming increasingly clear
she can do that only by sacrificing her moderate wing, which opposes
her plan and could pay heavily for it in next year's election.

The Democrats don't have the faintest idea as to how to prosecute the war and the evidence is their multi-pronged attack on an unpopular war in Iraq. The Democrats must also understand that they were elected because of their opposition to the war, but the only ideas they have about it are how to cut and run and to keep from getting blamed when that falls apart as it will. Yeppers, with the Democrats in power, it's looking more and more like the "ending" in Vietnam.

I'm hoping that when the American People see how truly faithless these Democrats are, that they will either put some more "Blue Dog" Democrats in office or some real conservative Republicans (as opposed to the big government, big spending, Republicans there now).

Just For The GWTB (Global Warming True Believers)

Being the kind of kind fellow that I am, and wanting the GWTB's to have factual information I've put up a WeatherStreet device on the top of my sidebar. So, now all you GWTB's can check your local environment's weather while you rant and rave about how us GWD (Global Warming Deniers - that are akin to holocaust denier of course) are going to cause temperature warming to the extent that our brains are going to cook in our heads. But, don't forget that all of you GWTB's will get cooked first because of your little tinfoil caps.

Sheesh, snark is so hard to do today!

Dear Mr. Gore:

Dear Mr. Gore:

I read with interest your response to the Drudge Report's claim that your home in Nashville uses an extra-ordinarily huge amount of electricity. I've also read you response as to how you "off set" your so called "carbon footprint" by purchasing "indulgences" as noted by

[Kaylee] Kreider [who] said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

But, you know what Mr. Gore?

Your Talk Talks,
And Your Walk Talks;
But Your Walk Talks LOUDER
Than Your Talk Talks!

Think about that!

Socialism, Progressivism And The French Revolution: The Politics Of Class Envy: Part I

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. The French Revolution of 1789 produced a number of words, phrases, ideas and ideals that have survived to this day, not all of them good. There is, of course the national motto Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité but the original revolutionary slogan was "Lliberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Ou La Mort" (liberty, equality, brotherhood or death). In addition, we have such bon mots as "Let them eat cake," supposedly uttered by Marie Antoinette when told the people had no bread to eat. We have guillotine, "après nous, le déluge" (after us, the flood - or, when we are gone, things will be disasterous - supposedly uttered by Madame de Pompadour mistress of Louis XV by others as "après moi, le déluge" uttered by Louis XVI but meaning essentially the same thing.)

We have a number of good things to thank the French Revolution for even if they were latecomers to the democracy table and even though their revolution was far bloodier than ours (some 18,000 were executed/killed during the reign of terror). The French however, like they seem to do as a culture often mucked things up and didn't learn to get it right at all. I am, admittedly, in general, a francophobe though there are individual Frech folk I admire a great deal. For example, while we got rid of a king and struggled to keep our democracy alive, the French got rid of a king, floundered through the reign of terror, struggled with the idea of a republic, placed Napolian on the throne, went back to a republic and on, and on, and on. We on the other hand, went through a very tragic civil war, but managed in the most part to keep our act together. Today, France is a fourth rate democracy tut tutting over things it cannot control or influence but still bridled with delusions of grandeur. We on the other hand are the world's super power and believe me, it ain't easy.

Having blathered all of the above, perhaps the reason that the ideals of the French Revolution were never realized were because essentially they were fomented on "class envy." There were some extremely heavy excesses by the French Monarchy for decades, the Roman Catholic Church was the largest landowner in France, the sans-culotte (literally, those without knee britches or the poor in Paris during the French Revolution) had no power, indeed, very often had nothing but the ability to draw breath and scrounge a living as best they could.

To this mix, came the very small, but vocal and vibrant middle class, who, along with some revolutionary upper class folks ushered in the "Reign of Terror" in which I have noted that some 18,000 souls lost their lives. Their "crime?" Being rich seems to have been the main complaint. Being "anti-revolutionary" was another, sometimes, even an accusation was sufficient for the sans-culotte to mob the victim and pummel them to death.

In 1789 the Estates General (consisting of the Clergy, the Nobility and the Middle Class and Peasants) couldn't get their act together and, the Third Estate (the middle class and the peasants) feared that the royals would attempt a gerrymandering and freeze them out. The folk of the third then formed The Communes (Commons) and one month later, frustrated and angry that Louis XVI banashed the reformist minister Necker, they stormed the Bastille and the Revolution was underway.

Fueled by a growing and bitter hatred of the wealthy, the "social" constructs behind "Lliberté, Égalité, Fraternité" were formed and the war against wealth has been going on ever since.

Today, we see these same ideals in the socialistic/progressivistic left who believe in confiscating wealth via taxes, handouts to the poor, unearned and other governmental actions designed, like the authors of the French Revolution, to inspire that envy. More in the next few days in Part II

Marcotte Resigns!

HEH!

A Wingnut Knuckle-Dragging Neandertholic Conservative Defends Marcotte And McEwan: Free Speech Is Exactly That ~ Free Speech!

I haven't blogged about Amanda Marcotte or Melissa McEwan, primarily because they really don't have anything to say that makes much sense to me. Both tend to be potty mouths and I'll be here to defend their right to cuss all they want. I've visited their blog a few times and found them to be both potty-mouthed and intransigent.

Now, this may sound like heresy to a lot of my friends, fellow conservative bloggers and readers, but hear me out. John Edwards is running for the Democratic nomination for president, but as a campaigner, he has much to learn. Too, I don't think he has a snowball's proverbial chance in hades to win the nomination, let alone the election, but he is wiley enough to know that there is something out there called the "internets" and he needs someone savy enough to get him an in with the netroots folk. Edwards looked around, talked (no doubt) to a number of advisors and was told that Marcotte and McEwan were some of the best in the business at laying it on the line against us warmongering knuckle-draggers. Fine!

As anyone familiar with my blog knows, I seldom use or tolerate cussing. It's not my style and this is my blog. In my Rules For Commenting, I swiped a phrase from Kat at Cathouse Chat who had swiped it from La Shawn Barber. It is pretty simple in it's formulation.

"this is my weblog and I pay for the hosting. The First Amendment protects my right to speak on this site, not yours. The amendment prohibits government from infringing on my right of free expression. On this blog, your expression is a privilege. On your own blog, your expression is a right. Learn the distinction."

I also added

There will be no swearing, invective (look it up), or ad hominem attacks of a juvenile nature...

The point being here that Pandagon where Marcotte and McEwan blog is their blog and they are, by law allowed to say just about anything they want. Nuff said?

They may (or may not have been) much of persuaders in the lefty corner of the blogosphere, and now the controversy has arisen regarding the tendency of these two to rant, rave and cuss on their blog. Guess what folks, I rant and rave but seldom cuss because that just ain't my style. It is apparantly their style and that is OK.

Of course, when the news came out there was a lot of pseudo-outrage that the two were potty mouths, that (and this was likely real outrage) they had made disparaging remarks about the Catholic Church and Christians and that Edwards must have holes in his head for hiring them without looking at the stuff they put on Pandagon (you may have noticed that I haven't linked to their site - nor will I, if you want, go find it on your own). But, I digress, the outrage was all over the blogosphere from righties and even from some lefties. But folks, we are the same ones that were outraged at the Muslims who rioted over cartoon's of Mohammad. Was the blog-riot of the same type? Are we so locked into our own partisanship so tightly that we cannot see the bigger picture?

And a bigger picture it is. It is the right of each American in this country to say just about what they want, where they want and how they want to say it. It is codified into one of our most cherished documents, the Constitution. And I for one believe that each amendment means what it says and that is that. Now, that seems pretty simple doesn't it? You will find, for example, many lefties that don't think the 2nd Amendment or the 9th or 10th Amendment don't mean what it says very plainly. But that is their right to say that. Doesn't matter if it makes sense that some amendments say what they mean and others don't.

Freedom of speech is then, the issue. You either have it, or you don't and the Constitution guarantees that Marcotte and McEwan have it, as do I, as do you.

And just after typing the above, but before I published it, I read Glenn Reynolds Instapundit and see that the Beltway Blogroll has an entry on just this subject and it's pretty good too. A sample:

You can tell they are working for a political campaign now because they are apologizing just like politicians.

Rather than saying "I am sorry," for instance, Marcotte wrote, "I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics." And this from McEwan: "It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”

Basically, Marcotte and McEwan have agreed to muzzle themselves while working for Edwards.

Of course, this is the typical mealy mouthed non-apology apology of politicians and others who have transgressed but don't have the guts to admit it, but, you know what, it is still their right to say what ever they want. And it is my right to criticize it but it is not my right to shut them up. I suspect the electorate will do that just fine.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh writing in his own inimitable style reports on attempts to crush free speech at San Francisco State University. This is a good read folks and underscores my point that free speech isn't free unless it is free for everyone.

Professor Volokh has a link to F.I.R.E. (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) which has more on the issue and while niether post is about Marcotte or McEwan, both underscore my main point.

MSM ISN't DECIDEDLY LIBERAL? You gotta be kidding!

I couldn't say it better than A Second Hand Conjecture... well done Lance.

Go read it all folks!

PETA: Stuff You Can't Make Up

Animal rights group promises nude protest today

Animal rights activists from PETA are promising to hold a nude protest in downtown Nashville today, even with frigid temperatures currently around 12 degrees.

A protester will be nude and will be "charred" and "cooked" on a grill while slathered with barbecue sauce, the group said in a press release. The protest is against eating meat.

I don't know about you, but envisioning that made me lose my appetite for meat...and everything else at the moment. And, being nude...in twelve degree weather?! Maybe they were protesting eating cold cuts.

Lies, Damn Lies and Hillary Clinton!

As any reader of this blog will undoubtedly know, I'm no big fan of Hillary Clinton, in fact, there are fewer people in politics that I despise more for their politics. When the harridan from New York via Little Rock via Washington via Chicago announced for the Senate in 2000, no one who could think in coherent sentences doubted that her only goal was to run for president. Her constant lies about "not decided yet" not-withstanding, she was running from the first day her husband was running. Anyone remember the famous "two-fer" she uttered during the '92 campaign? That alone should have made it obvious.

Now, she is "officially" running and true to the ideals of Bill, she is lying up a storm and expecting no one to notice. In Iowa, she said:

I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So [President bush] took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority." [emphasis added]

Wow, the smartest woman in the world was duped by the dumbest president ever! Whoda thunk it? But wait, she has, on record, other statements about her vote, one that kinda, sorta, perhaps, maybe, ah hell, definately puts the lie to her statement in Des Moines when she justified her vote to Code Pink:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefulling reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part of this decision." [emphasis added]

There you have it, out of her own mouth. Yeppers, the big lie, repeated often enough will be believed (but only by those who can't think their way out of a wet paper sack (you sure are getting fond of that phrase Roper... ed!) I wonder if "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies," includes her husbands foray's into Kosovo without UN sanction? Hmmm?

There are Taxes and then There Are Taxes! [UPDATED]

Sent to me by a friend:

Note: This post is put up as sent. Because there are a bunch of overly sensitive hyperPC liberals out there, I've colored RED the sections that I do not agree with nor do I nor have I ever endorsed. Those sections colored in GREEN are doubtless the ones the same PC folk would agree with because in their comments they said noting about this at all. So, if it describes something negative about someone from your "Tribe" you are likely to bitch about it, if it says something negative about someone elses tribe you say nothing. We call that hypocracy where I come from. GET IT E. NONEE MOOSE? BISHOPDIC?

If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax refunds, maybe this will help explain it:

Let's say 50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.

The team was about to mail refunds when a group of Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out the ticket refunds based on the
Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness.

Originally the refunds were to be paid based on the price each person had paid for the tickets. Unfortunately that meant most of the refund money would be going to the ticket holders that had purchased the most expensive tickets.

This, according to the DNC, is considered totally unfair. A decision was then made to pay out the refunds in this manner:

People in the $10 seats will get back $15. After all, they have less money to spend on tickets to begin with. Call it an "Earned Income Ticket Credit." Persons "earn" it by having few skills, poor work habits, and low ambition, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because it "seems fair." People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, they must not be paying enough taxes.

People in the $75 luxury box seats will each have to pay an additional $25 because it's the "right thing to do."

People walking past the stadium that couldn't afford to buy a ticket for the game each will get a $10 refund, even though they didn't pay anything for the tickets. They need the most help. Sometimes this is known as Affirmative Action.

Now do you understand?

If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator or Ted Kennedy for assistance. You can also contact Senator Harry Reid but he is likely to be too busy explaining his massive land-purchase problems as not being part of the "Culture of Corruption." Likewise, you could contact Senator Hillary Clinton but she will be either too busy explaining her how her $1000.00 investment turned into $100,000.00 in only 10 months OR she will want to engage you in a conversation so she can be elected President.

How To Lose A Sale, And Piss Off America At The Same Time

Last Friday, Cinnamon Stillwell, a good friend and fellow blogger alerted me to an almost unbelievable "sales" response to one of our troops stationed in Iraq. The troop, one Sgt. Jason Hess serving with the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq. Sgt. Hess was inquiring about better mats for his troops to sleep on. Here is his email to Discount Floor Mats of West Allis, Wisconson:

To Whom it may concern:
Do you ship to APO addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.

SGT Hess

Continue reading "How To Lose A Sale, And Piss Off America At The Same Time"

Global Warming Cause Robs Families

To fund global warming programs, money and resources are kept from other, perhaps more worthy, needs. Money for any program cannot be created from nothing. People have to work for it. That earned money can be used to provide for their families or invested in education, medical research, and protection from terrorists.

Those segments of our economy have known benefits. I and others believe that global warming claims fall short. People who are sincere about global warming threats must produce substantive proof and believable cost/benefit studies on it before the entire country accepts that issue a higher priority than families.

A scientist fighting malaria in Africa has similar problems with the anthropogenic global warming alarmists, who misrepesent facts in his field and soak up money which could save millions of lives from that disease. Here is a link to his article along with selections from it, but please go read the entire article:

Dangers of disinformation, by Paul Reiter

Fallacies infect every debate about the environment and affect policy, taxpayers' money and victims' lives.

Scientists ask questions, formulate hypotheses, design experiments, look at the evidence, modify the hypotheses and probe further. Then activists, news media and politics take over.

Look at climate change: The public hears again and again that there is scientific consensus, that it's happening now and that we are on the brink of disaster. This is nonsense. Now, every politician of every stripe must embrace the "climate consensus" or be branded a callous skeptic.

I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So, let's talk malaria. For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease to spread. We have failed miserably.

The weather is largely out of our control, but malaria is not. While billions are spent on climate change prevention and by advocacy groups, malaria remains rampant, killing millions, making life a misery for hundreds of millions....

Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria.

Do global warming activists think that billions of dollars mysteriously appear for their research and political activities? It comes in large part from fathers and mothers who worked for it. If an activist says that you should pay more to the global warming cause "for our grandchildren," tell him that "your children" need education, health care, and security today, and doesn't he care about them?

Global Warming: Hysteria Will Prevail Over Science [Updated]

The battle over global warming is over. We lost, "we" meaning skeptics who don't want to jump the gun on expensive and likely useless solutions. There's just no official representative to raise the white flag. Why is the battle lost? Is it based on science or something else? It's the something else. Global warming activists will keep up their rabid attacks until every scientist who doubts them is destroyed and every skeptic is silenced.

Hysteria over global warming: the extent of it, the causes of it, the solutions for it--all credibility issues, have prevailed over reason and cooler heads. It's like a lie about someone's reputation that gets spread so far and so fast that there is no hope of redemption.

If man-made global warming is so real, then why has politics replaced science, why have well-meaning skeptics been demonized, why does liberal media present only one side, and why does this require indoctrination of young people in schools? Like most things, conservatives are going to lose this battle--not for lack of scientific honesty, but because the left totally dedicates itself to radical causes, especially those that cripple capitalism, while the rest of us put our priorities on maintaining responsible jobs and families. They gradually wear us down.

Here are some of the latest efforts to ram global warming's radicalism down our throats. For time reasons, I will provide links and selected quotes from several articles which illustrate this problem. They are found on the next page. It's long, but enjoy.

Continue reading "Global Warming: Hysteria Will Prevail Over Science [Updated]"

Still Doubt That Saddam Hussein Had WMD's?

No weapons of mass destruction? Bush lied? Read selections from the following article.

Tape bares Saddam's chilling admissions of war crimes
By JOHN F. BURNS, New York Times, Published on: 01/10/07

In audio recordings made years ago and played this week in his absence, Saddam was heard justifying the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s, predicting they would kill "thousands" and saying he alone among Iraq's leaders had the authority to order chemical attacks.

In the sequence of scratchy recordings — some with the dialogue quite clear, some barely decipherable — Saddam repeatedly showed the ready resort to brutality that made Iraq a nation seized with fear during his 24 years in power.

One recording revealed, more clearly than anything before, Saddam's personal involvement in covering up Iraq's attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the program that ultimately led to President Bush sending U.S. troops to overthrow him. Talking to the Iraqi general heading Iraq's dealings with U.N. weapons inspectors until weeks before the 2003 invasion, he counseled caution in the figures being divulged on the extent of Iraq's feed stocks for chemical weapons, so as to disguise the use of unaccounted-for chemicals in the attacks on the Kurds.

But it was Saddam's chilling discussion of the power of chemical weapons against civilian populations that brought prosecutors and judges to the verge of tears, and seemed to shock the remaining defendants. One of the recordings featured an unidentified military officer telling Saddam that a plan was under development for having transport aircraft carry containers packed with up to 50 napalm bombs each rolled out of the back of the cargo deck and dropped on Kurdish towns.

(Television footage taken in the aftermath of the Halabjah attack, which more than any other event focused world attention on the atrocities committed under Saddam,) showed the horrors: a father wailing in grief as he found his children lying along a street littered with bodies; dead mothers clutching gas-choked infants to their breasts in swaddling clothes; young sisters embracing each other in death; and trucks piled high with civilian corpses. "I ask the whole world to look at these images, especially those who are crying right now," Faroun said, referring to the outpouring of sympathy for Saddam.

U.S. Justice Department lawyers who have done much of the behind-the-scenes work in sifting tons of documents and other evidence gathered after the invasion of 2003 had never hinted that they held the trump card, judicially and historically, that the audio recordings seem likely to be.

I give credit to the administration for keeping details of the evidence about Iraq's WMDs secret to obtain a conviction rather than giving it up simply to silence Democratic and foreign critics.

Is everyone satisfied, now, that Hussein had and used weapons of mass destruction, or do you have to experience them yourself to be convinced? How long would you have allowed these mass murders to continue if you were President? So much for "Bush Lied." At what point would more weapons be manufactured and provided to terrorists for use against us? Did we have to know any more to be worried about our security and about justice and to act, while the U.N. stalled as its officials were profiting from Hussein's payoffs?

Are there any admissions of being wrong on this issue and apologies forthcoming or just more blind patisan denials?

Finally, where do we go from here? Pull out and abandon the Iraqi people again to terrorists and tyrants or stay until we win the battle?

Ursus Maritimus Delinda Est - NOT!

Ursus Maritimus, the great white Polar Bear is in danger of becoming, not extinct, except to the degree that any species anywhere (including man perhaps) is in danger of becoming extinct. But the Polar Bear is is becoming another symbol. A symbol of the left's attempt to make global warming a dread catastrophe.

The polar bear is an off-shoot of the famous brown bear, the grizzly (Ursus Arctos) along with other Brown bears probably share a common ancestor until about 20,000 years ago. This can be discerned from changes in the molars of the polar bear. It should also be noted that the polar bear can mate with the brown bear (and has) indicating that the polar variety is probably a subspecies of the brown bear.

A little less than two years ago this was reported:

A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, said: "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change."

Mr Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears.

He even suggests that global warming could actually be good for the bears, and warns that the ever-increasing proximity of the animals to local communities could mean that a cull will be required sooner rather that later if bear numbers are to be kept under control.

In another article, published just 6 months later the claim is there is a serious decline due to "global warming"

So, since February of '05, the big fuzzy white bear has gone from a 25% increase to "nearing extinction?" Balderdash.

But really, lets take a look at what the reality is. The reality is that there are a number of differing populations of polar bears. One may decline, others increase. One article noted above indicates a decline in the "condition" of momma bears in the Hudson Bay area while a side article notes that "increased ice" in the Baffin Bay area has threatened narwhals who need holes in the ice to breathe.

The U.S. has indeed indicated that it wants to put polar bears on the endangered list, but is this good science, or more hysteria? Lets look at the numbers:

Estimates of the size of the population of polar bears in the Chukchi Sea are lacking, but the catch per unit of effort during research tagging there may suggest an increase, as do observations and kills by coastal residents. Uspenski and Belikov (1991) believe there are more bears in the Chukchi Sea now than in the past despite the absence of a reliable population estimate.

Thus, the good news of apparent increases in numbers is accompanied by increased challenges for management. Those challenges can only be met by a better understanding of the dynamics of the polar bear's ecosystem. In the Chukchi Sea, there is a pressing need for development of new methods for determining numbers and trends. This need appears more urgent in view of the likelihood that the ban on polar bear hunting in Russia, in effect since 1956, will be lifted. The bounds of optimum sustainable population levels are not known in the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, and interactions between polar bears and their prey and polar bears and sea ice, which establish these levels, are not understood. If managers are to keep polar bear numbers at optimum sustainable population levels in the face of increased harvests and other local and global perturbations, they will need more accurate and precise population estimates and an understanding of the ecosystem forces that limit polar bear population size.

A 2005 estimate was that there were between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in all populations.

In a closed meeting here late last month, 40 members of the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union concluded that the imposing white carnivores -- the world's largest bear -- should now be classified as a "vulnerable" species based on a likely 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. There are now 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears across the Arctic.

And since these stocks are fertile with other brown bears, the chance of full extinction is slim.

There are other voices however and one wonders why the emphasis on this animal rather than others. One explanation:

Polar bears are cute. Just ask the marketing executives at Coca-Cola which used animated polar bears to hawk their wares in recent years. Bears, pandas, lions and elephants are "charismatic megafauna" -- meaning basically cute animals that people care about. If you want to sell a product, or a cause, just tie it to one of these animals and you've got the attention of millions of people; kids and adults alike.

Thus, environmental alarmists have made much of research claiming the Arctic's great white bear faces extinction from human-caused global warming. Snails, snakes and spiders withering in the sun just don't pack the same emotional punch as a cuddly, furry polar bear slipping beneath the melting ice.

In the same article, we find indications that the picture is much less bleak than the global warming enthusiasts would have you believe:

Fortunately, a new study by David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim global warming threatens polar bears survival.

Mr. Legates critiques the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that proclaimed Arctic air temperature trends strongly indicate global warming, causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, Mr. Legates says, the Assessment ignored data that undermine these claims.

For example, coastal stations in Greenland are cooling and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since measurements began in 1987. In addition, records from Russian coastal stations show the extent and thickness of sea ice has varied greatly over 60- to 80-year periods during the last 125 years. Moreover, the maximum air temperature they report for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the air temperature in 2000.

Ice core data from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea also show that even if there is warming, it has occurred before. In Alaska, the onset of a climatic shift -- a warming -- in 1976-1977 ended the multidecade cold trend in the mid-20th century returning temperatures to those of the early 20th century.

In addition, a study commissioned by Canada's Fisheries and Oceans Department examined the relationship between air temperature and sea ice coverage, concluding, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice."

The above referenced article concludes:

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. But, their own data on polar bear populations contradict claims that rising air temperatures are causing a decline in polar bear populations.

According to the WWF there are some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number -- are growing and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.

As for the rest, 10 populations -- comprising about 45.4 percent of the total -- are stable, and the status of the remaining six is unknown. Conclusion: based on the available evidence there is little reason to believe the current warming trend will lead to extinction of polar bears.

These bears have survived for thousands of years, during both colder and warmer periods, and their populations are by and large in good shape. Polar bears may face many threats, but global warming is not primary among them. Global warming alarmists are like the wizard of Oz, asking the public fear the spectacle, but not to pull back the curtain and unmask them for the charlatans they are.

So, Ursus Maritimus Delinda Est? I think not, but then I'm a global warming skeptic. The true believers will use the polar bear issue to the hilt, not because it is true, but because cute cuddly white bears have a definate anthropomorphic quality and the charlatans aren't above pulling on heart strings to get your attention. Fear tactics only work when the populace isn't aware that that is the method being used.

UPDATE: One of our commenters who calls himself GW (but is really Mark York incognitio) typically likes to point out that "government" scientists, in particular "BUSH GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS" (you do note the sarcasm here don't you yorkie?) upholding his claims of a major catastrophe two weeks from when ever he says it will happen. (snark) Well, here is a "Government Scientist" from Canada that flat out desputes Yorkie:

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment,
Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

May 1, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Flannery is one of Australia 's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea.

The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong.

All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs — sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.

One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.

Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor

The Eye Of The Beholder

Allow me to paint a word picture for you:

You enter a room, quietly close the door behind you and sit in the rose colored easy chair next to the lamp on the south side of the room. Looking around, you take in your surroundings. The room is warm, and comfortable. You glance around looking at nothing in particular finally noticing a brightly colored square of paper on the coffee table. You pick it up and try to think of the name of the color. Forrest green you decide. No, wait, perhaps a deep emerald green. Yes, that's it. You take the paper to your spouse and note the deep shade of green, scintillating in the light. Your spouse looks at you in confusion and says "No sweetheart, that is scarlet red." Confused, you ask your children and they too say red. For a week, everyone you ask says "red," but you still see green."

The reality is that it doesn't matter what other people say, your experience of the square of paper is green, that is your perception of reality and it matters not what other peoples reality is. The knowledge that you are colorblind, that you will always see one color when other's see another matters not. In the case above, green is your reality.

So too it is with politics. It doesn't matter a whit if you are a conservative or liberal, a communist or libertarian, a socialist or anarchist. Your perspective is colored by your world view. Now, to say that some world views, some political systems are more, shall we say, realistic than others ought to be a no brainer. And so it is. I am amused by liberals that proclaim that they are "Proud Members Of The Reality Based Community" as if by proclaiming that, they are the only purveyors of truth, justice and the American Way! Of course, the entire purpose of the Reality Based Community canard is to provide an internal boost to what must be a very lonely position, say that of seeing a green square of paper when most everyone else sees red.

My real problem with liberals is that they see the world as they want it to be, not as it is. Their reality is not based in reality, but is completely colored by their perception, and too often, it is not a pretty sight. Take education for example. The liberal position is that we need a federal bureaucracy, more teachers unions, more money, longer school days; we need to fix the broken "structure" of education. It doesn't seem to matter that the so called structure is the same as it has been for the last 75 years or so and that it worked pretty well in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's and with the advent of the professional educator the so called structure seemed to break down yielding 4 year olds being charged with sexual harrassment, a multitude of "pride" days and high school teachers being terminated for teaching real as opposed to say "culturally correct" history.

The coloring of politics has also entered the vaunted main stream media or MSM as we bloggers call it. I know, I know, the soi disant reality based community (shall we abbreviate this as RBC for the rest of this article?) maintains that the MSM is owned by corporations and thus must be "conservative" but that is reflective of their world view; all corporations are money grubbing conservative organs of the state who protects corporations via tax structure forcing the weak and the poor to feed their hard earned dollars to the fat cats. Of course, the "real" reality is that newspapers are owned by corporations but staffed by graduates of schools of journalism and anybody that believes that those schools are not "generally" bastions of left leaning thought are not only not thinking, they are not using one scintilla of their supposed brain power.

Thus, we get headlines like posted in the L.A. Times: "Monthly U.S. toll in Iraq at 2-year high". The headline is the political view of an organization viewing casualties and other stories from Iraq through the liberal prisim, but it is the "green square of paper" we talked about above. The reality is (courtesy of Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette):

Barring a New Year's Eve plane crash, 2006 looks like a slightly better year in Iraq for US casualties

...the year total of 816 as of Saturday morning, is on course to be slightly lower than last year's 846 U.S. fatalities.

The number of U.S. wounded also declined this year, from 5,947 in 2005 to 5,676 so far this year.

(We should also note that the majority of troops wounded in Iraq returned to duty within 72 hours.)

O.K. Roper, this means what? Well, simply put the American people are getting a description of the War in Iraq as a massive US failure and George Bush as a bumbling idiot at best and a war criminal at worst. The reality, as opposed to the view of the RBC, is that the massive civilian casualties in Iraq are the work of Iraqis against other Iraqis. Sunni vs S'hia as it were. Some call it civil war, but that is a little misleading because it is sectarian violence by one tribe of Muslims against another tribe of Muslims. The common ground here is that many of the illegal combatants here believe their version of Allah is better than the other version of Allah and that alone gives them license to kill other Muslims.

Now, has United States policy played into this? Sure, somewhat. Back some time ago an arrest warrant was issued for Moqtada Sadr:

An Iraqi judge has released an arrest warrant for Moqtada Sadr in connection with the death of a moderate Shia leader, Abdul Majid al-Khoei, in April 2003, just two days after the fall of Baghdad.

Moqtada Sadr strongly denies any role in the murder.

His supporters have also clashed with followers of Ayatollah Sistani.

He has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran.

Got that did you? I'll repeat for any liberals reading this blog: "He has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran."

Iran? Iran, you say? What does that have to do with the criminal liability of George Dubya? Well, it should show those in the RBC that the violence in Iraq is not necessarily the fault of GWB, but rather the involvement of Iran in an act of state supported terrorism. The same will go for the Syrian version of Wormtongue (with all due apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien). That the RBC cannot see this because it is a red square of paper should not be surprising. All they can see is the green because of their own inability to understand that their perception is not the so called real world.

There will, no doubt, be those who would challange this understanding, but that is OK, it is, again, their perception. The reality is, despite what the majority of the left would think, that the sectarian violence in Iraq is sponsored by two states, Syria and Iran. Oddly enough, those with clear eyes can see that, can see that Moqtada Sadr is a puppet with a famous name (his father, a revered S'hia cleric, was reportedly assassinated by Saddam's orders).

So, if you do indeed have the ability to think, to reason beyond your own perceptions, think through who benefits from an unstable Iraq? Who is rapidly running out of the ability to bring their oil to the market because they have ignored their infrastructure from the beginning of the so called mullahocracy:

"They need to invest $2.5bn (£1.28bn) a year just to stand still and they're not doing it because it's politically easier to spend the money on social welfare and the army than to wait four to six years for a return on investment," he said.

"They've been running down the industry like this for 20 years."

For 40 of my 60 years on this earth the MSM has been pissing on my shoes. I didn't believe it was rain then, and I don't believe it now, but then, my eyes aren't blind to reality even though I see things through a conservative perspective.

"Inconvenient Hurricane Season" for "An Inconvenient Truth"

Total named storms (tropical storms & hurricanes)
as of given dates for this year so far, and compared to normal.
(From WeatherStreet.com)

Al Gore and alarmists from the Left predicted that hurricanes in 2006 would become more numerous and more forceful because of mankind induced global warming. To stop this, we had to act now. After all, there is a consensus among scientists and the debate on global warming is over. Guess what. The year after those predictions, hurricane activity was down.

Hurricane Predictions Off Track As Tranquil Season Wafts Away

With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade. Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.

Do you know what I expect as a result of this? First, the alarmists will say that we're lying about their predictions. That's their automatic response. And, later, I honestly expect that those who attend the "Church of Global Warming" will blame man-induced global warming on the decrease in hurricane activity, now that their predictions for an increase failed. They take any and all sides to make their points. To prove our side, we just have to wait two-hundred years to see how false their predictions proved to be and how dishonest they are being now.

The Left likes that. Their solutions to short-term problems get exposed as false very quickly. It can take decades and centuries for their long-term predictions for disasters to be proven wrong. In the meantime, I'm against wasting significant money on this issue, whether paid with taxes or impact on our economy.

Because hurricane destruction was less than predicted this year, do you think that Al Gore is more glad for mankind or upset for his cause?

Latest Nutcase Teacher from the Left

For his third grade lesson on Thanksgiving, a teacher wore a Pilgrim hat and started taking pencils and backpacks from students claiming that those things belonged to him because "he discovered them." Of course, he believes that approach is better and "more realistic" than traditional Thanksgiving lessons illustrating that Pilgrims and Indians came together in peace and to feast for the purpose of offering thanks. Yep. Let's not teach our children the good lessons of Thanksgiving but rather teach them to despise our nation and view its origins and the white settlers as bad. Third grade is a good place to start beating kids up with that distorted attitude. Well, at least if you're from the left.

Hey, Teacher. Leave Those Kids Alone

Now, would he support adding another Thanksgiving message by having the kids scalp him and savagely murder his family? Not in the world of liberal PC. It's too bad that a voucher program to make schools compete is opposed by these teachers, but it's no wonder why.

G.M. UPDATE: From the news report cited above:

Chuck Narcho, a member of the Maricopa and Tohono O'odham tribes who works as a substitute teacher in Los Angeles, said younger children should not be burdened with all the gory details of American history.

"If you are going to teach, you need to keep it positive," he said. "They can learn about the truths when they grow up. Caring, sharing and giving — that is what was originally intended."

Mr. Narcho has it right.

The Draft Returns?

Rep Rangel Will Seek To Reinstate The Draft

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He has introduced legislation to reinstate the draft believing, despite any claims to the contrary, that it will be a way to make the public rise up against the war, indeed any war if their son's and daughter's are likely to be called up in harms way.

I might note that before the 2004 election, the Democrats floated this prescription as a Republican hidden agenda and indeed sent letters out to many families of college age men and women claiming that Bush would institute a draft after the election.

Since that didn't work, he is now doing it much more out in the open. Ahhh, the stench of hypocaracy is heavy in the air.

Actually, I think the draft is probably a good idea. It was the Citizen Soldier that won WWI and WWII coupled with good leadership. But, let's go Rangel one better, let's include zero deferments, include women. Got the guts to do that Rangel? I doubt it. This is strictly a grandstand play by Charlie.

Update: Anti-Military Bias? No question about it and Assistant Village Idiot was absolutely correct, the A&H crowd strikes again.

A Portent Of Things To Come? - UPDATED

This post is filed under Liberals And Democrats because it is about Liberals and Democrats. So, what else would I blog in a blogsite devoted to the POV of a right wing, knuckle dragging, neandertholic, conservative? But, I digress.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is the presumptive Speaker of the United States House of Representatives when the next congress convenes in January, 2007. The newly elected Majority Leader is Jack Murtha Steny Hoyer. Hoyer IS is NOT a friend of Pelosi, and in fact, lost to Pelosi in the race for minority leader two years ago. This setback for Pelosi brings to mind a question as to her competence to be the Speaker (not that Denny Hastert was any shining example). Too, Pelosi has proposed a number of folk for leadership positions that absolutely call into question her fitness for the job. She has proposed, as a sop to the Congressional Black Caucus the elevation of Alcee Hastings to the chair of the House Intelligence Committee over Jane Harmon. The CBC wants Hastings because of the (gasp) ethics problems of William Jefferson (D-La). This is compounded by the fact that Pelosi doesn't like her fellow Californian Jane Harmon. Ruth Marcus, commenting in the afore linked Washington Post article a week prior to the election notes:

Pelosi is in a box of her own devising. The panel's ranking Democrat is her fellow Californian Jane Harman -- smart and hardworking but also abrasive, ambitious and, in Pelosi's estimation, insufficiently partisan on the committee. So Pelosi, once the intelligence panel's ranking Democrat herself, has made clear that she doesn't intend to name Harman to the chairmanship." [emphasis added]

Insufficiently partisan? For the Intelligence Committee? Isn't that what Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have railed against? What happened to the Democrats cry's for bipartisanship when they lost an election?

In fact, there is some evidence that a Pelosi "speakership" will be frought with multiple problems in getting her liberal agenda through. There are the so called "Blue-Dog" Democrats, 44 by last count, who represent a little less than 1/5^th(19.3832599% to be a little more precise) of the incoming "ruling" Democrats. What are "Blue-Dog" Democrats you ask? Simple, they are moderate to conservative Democrats who ran and were elected as Democrats in spite of (because of?) not running as Liberals. The website Capital Questions states that Blue-Dog Democrats are

The Blue Dogs, [,,,] are less fiercely partisan, and they do not all hail from the South. They seek to build ideological bridges to the Republican side of the aisle, are known for their independence from the leadership of their own party, and tend to be more pragmatic than partisan.

This alone presents an interesting connundrum for Pelosi and the other liberals in the Democratic House Heirarchy. Will her hyperpartisanship (despite her photo-ops with George W. Bush and pronouncements to the contrary) cause her to run up against the Blue-Dogs as often as she will the Republicans? Note also, that many of the "defeated" Republicans were what many conservatives called RINOs (Republican In Name Only).

As I have stated in a previous post, the coming battles may well prove to be a target rich inverionment for this and other bloggers. In fact, my blog-father, a big time "progressive" (he dosen't like the term liberal applied to himself) Marc Cooper, alluding to the missteps by Pelosi regarding her selections and appoitments saying:

In the end, it's a stupid, pointless fight and regardless of its outcome a dumb first move by Pelosi that focuses the debate on flawed ethics rather than on bold leadership.

Cooper also noted that his friend (and fellow liberal progressive Doug Ireland had this to say about Pelosi: "...she just ain't all that smart"

Just who is Nancy Pelosi, the lawmaker from San Francisco with an exagerrated reputation for liberalism? She's an opportunist and a trimmer, who -- just two days after the Democrats re-took both houses of Congress and her Speakership was assured -- proclaimed, "We must govern from the center." When she was first elected to lead the House Democrats six years ago, I investigated Pelosi's background for the L.A. WEEKLY. And one of the things I found out in my digging was that she just ain't all that smart.

Pelosi is catching it from the right as well. Lorie Byrd said (in an article titled "From Moderate To Moonbat In Less Than A Week":

Nancy Pelosi said, “the American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”

In spite of those words, she backed John Murtha over Steny Hoyer for the position of majority leader, even as conservative talk radio hosts played over and over again a decades old tape of Murtha’s involvement in the Abscam scandal.

Byrd was not the only one on the right (as can well be imagined) who picked up on the faux moderate => to moonbat transformation, Neo-Neo Con notes:

We expected her stand to offend Republicans; that's not news. But it offended Democrats as well, not to mention Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, previously labeled "...probably the most anti-Bush reporter currently assigned to the White House by a major news organization" by John J. Miller of National Review.

And there you have it beloved readers, Nancy Pelosi (DIMocrat - California), incoming Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is an airhead and catching it (and well deservedly so I'm sure) from both the right (which is expected) and the left (which is icing on the cake). I'm sure that this is a portent of things to come and I just can't wait!

Cross Posted At The Real Ugly American.

Global Warming Alarmists Scare Kids

The global warming alarmists on the left have no shame and will do whaever it takes, including scaring kids, to attack western economies.

New UN Children’s Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids

A new United Nations children’s book promoting fears of catastrophic manmade global warming is being promoted at the UN Climate Change Conference in Kenya. ...The new children’s book, entitled “Tore and the Town on Thin Ice” is published by the United Nations Environment Programme and blames “rich countries” for creating a climate catastrophe and urges children to join environmental groups.

...The polar bear (tells) Tore, “It looks like many animals and fish and birds will go extinct—die out—during your lifetime, partly because of changes in climate.” ...After a whale appears to present more climate fear, the boy finally screams, “Listen, I’ve had all the bad news I can stand. Our world is melting. Polar bears are starving and all sorts of animals won’t survive. I don’t want to hear anymore!” The whale responds, “That’s the spirit! Get good and angry. You’ll need all that energy to make a difference.”

Nice. Child abuse, perhaps? You may ask if this is a joke, which it seems on the surface, but this is real and shows the desperation of the anti-West and anti-capitalist movement, which has hijacked science with left-wing politics and scare tactics. Is this what they want "for the childrennnnn?" Maybe Stephen King's next scary book can be on global warming.

If you want to see a copy of the actual book, click on the book title above which takes you to a pdf copy of it. But, for information on global warming which is honest, here are scientists who let us know the truth:

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming
Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Netroots, that silly little name used to describe a bunch of ultra-liberal activists who are in a thither that their chosen god-head Ned Lamont is not doing well in his election fight against a well established, and well liked Joe Lieberman.

In the Lieberman-Lamont fight, there has been a fair amount of hand wringing over why Lamont isn't blowing Joe out of the water. Why, if Joe lost to Lamont, isn't he losing in the general? Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let's be very clear - this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it's the party primary voters that they are abandoning.

OK, lets see if we can understand this conundrum: use anti-war sentiment and a hell-of-a-lot of money that doesn't belong to you but that comes from some very special BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) points of view and get a nomination for a lightweight with almost no experience on the national stage. Hustle your fanny off and get him the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate and then assume that because you won, you have the entire Democratic vote in a very blue state. I think that falls under the rubric of hubris.

They know that Democratic Senators are moral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren't further ahead when the Republicans screw everything up. The Democratic Senate leaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran. They aren't poll-driven, they aren't fear-driven, and they aren't driven by strategic differences. They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary.

Well, Republicans have been saying that for years. But is it true, or is it sour grapes from a bunch of adolescents who think that they own the electorate with the only agenda that makes sense to them? I suggest it is the latter. The Democratic party is just like the Republican party from the standpoint that they are frequently driven by an affinity for power more than they are driven by a careful analysis of what needs to be done for the overall good of the country. The netroots folk see this as a betrayal of their high flalutin' ideals much as the Goldwaterites did in the mid-sixties. I know, I was one of those Goldwaterites. The difference is, we set about building a solid conservative base that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The netroots folk have yet to do that though they may in the long run.

It's sad. Lamont can win this, and we're all doing our best to make that happen. But the important story here is not that the country supports the war, it doesn't. Lieberman is running on an antiwar platform, promising to bring the troops home in a transparently dishonest pander to the left. The important story here is that the DC Senate Democrats and DC lobbyists are not on our side. They have their own side, a side that is out of touch, immoral, and dishonest.

"... in a transparently dishonest pander to the left." What do you think the rest of the electorate thinks of the netroots folk?

Patently, MYDD and the KOSsacks have an agenda, one that is pretty much at odds with the majority of the country and less so with the Democratic party, but that too. I wish them well, mostly for the amusement they provide to the rest of us. These folk have yet to champion a winner, Lamont's victory in Connetticut notwithstanding, and with this kind of attitude, they aren't likely to.

Hey fellas, if you want to win, you have to convince both the electorate and the party you choose that your ideas are superior. That's the way it works. Learn that and you can win. Whine like you are doing now, and while it may feel good, it makes you look like a bunch of self-centered adolescents.

A tip 'O The GM Derby to Instapundit.

Pelosi vs. Conyers: To Impeach Or Not To Impeach, That Is The Question

To impeach, or not to impeach: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous elections,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
and employment of countless lawyers,
And by opposing provide ample fodder for the press?
To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That the electorate is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To elect Republicans, to elect Democrats;
To sleep and perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that election what folly may come
When we have elected a government deserving of
All of us, before we shuffled off this mortal coil... and
Elect a bevy of partisan hacks, more interested in power
Than in effective government and government not
Willing to bow down to terroristic threats. Ahh, to vote
Republican or no. Aye, I have made my mind, I cannot
See this great republic ground down by scoundrels worse
Than the ones currently in place.
Nay! Consulting the stars gives one pause, and I shall
Vote Republican, for that is my wont and I fear
The coming of a Conyers or his mistress Nancy of Pelosiville.

I know it. They Won't Admit It. Professors Push Liberalism.

Have you ever thought that college professors are liberal--and, that they push that view on students? If so, what made you come to that conclusion? For many of us, it was because of personal experiences in the classroom or tales of professor indoctrination from our kids. How accurate are these perceptions? Consider findings of this recent study:

"A Profile of American College Faculty Volume I: Political Beliefs & Behavior."

"Major Findings (Undelined emphasis mine)

"Faculty Political Ideology Is Overwhelmingly Liberal
Faculty at colleges and universities of all kinds in America are overwhelmingly liberal in their political ideology, creating a strong campus political culture. Categorized according to both self-identification and voting patterns, faculty are heavily weighted towards the Left. Indeed, those who identify as independents and moderates actually vote more like liberals and Democrats.

"Faculty Are Not Representative of the American Public
The majority of faculty are liberal and Democratic, and therefore the full spectrum of beliefs and political behavior of the American public is underrepresented on campus.

"Faculty Are Ideologically Critical of America and Business, Supportive of International Institutions
Faculty hold a certain number of beliefs that are pervasive, but not monolithic. They include:
• Criticism of many American foreign and domestic policies.
• Propensity to blame America for world problems.

Continue reading "I know it. They Won't Admit It. Professors Push Liberalism."

Harry Reid IS the Culture of Corruption!

Harry Reid IS the "Culture Of Corruption". Read "Reid Him His Rights" by my good friend Big Dog, then come back and comment.

A taste:

After the land was rezoned and then sold, Reid made a huge profit and reported it to Congress as a sale of his own property. The way he did business, as the story points out, allowed him to transfer ownership, legal liability and tax consequences and then allowed him to make a fortune off the sale. Once again the appearance of impropriety is enough to make this bad but the dealings indicate Reid used his political position for personal gain and this is a violation of the law. Reid dismisses this as an election year smear tactic but has directed that his financial records and ethics papers be corrected to report the things the way they should have been in the first place. Reid calls this the correction of an oversight, when a Republican is involved he calls it a culture of corruption.

Harry Reid, how do you plead?

Update: From Investors Business Daily:

We remember the feeding frenzy over former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's alleged violation of federal tax law in using tax-exempt funds to fund his allegedly political college course, "Renewing American Civilization."

After a 3 1/2-year ordeal, and a $300,000 fine paid to the House Ethics Committee, the IRS finally ruled that the sponsoring organization, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, "did not serve the private interests of Mr. Gingrich" and was both apolitical and completely legal.

Which is more than you can say about Reid's shenanigans. Gingrich wasn't offered a "do-over" or the opportunity to amend anything. In his case, it was sentence first, trial later. But then, unlike Reid, he was both innocent and a Republican.

Violate PC Speech - Go to Jail

Want to know how bad penalties have gotten for violating politically correct speech codes? Consider this matter involving a fourteen year old female student in the U.K.

From "Blue Star Chronicles"....
British Student Arrested for Being Politically Incorrect

A 14-year-old British girl was arrested for racism when she asked to work on a project with English speaking students. It seems she was to work on this project with 'Asian' students (that's PC code for muslim) and only one of the group spoke English. The group was supposed to discuss the project.

She went to speak to her teacher ...."I said 'I'm not being funny, but can I change groups because I can't understand them?' But she (the teacher) started shouting and screaming, saying 'It's racist, you're going to get done by the police'."

More details can be found in the "Daily Mail" article titled "Schoolgirl arrested for refusing to study with non-English pupils," which adds this:

Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.

A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.

"They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken," said Codie. "It was awful."

After questioning on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offence, her mother Nicola says she was placed in a bare cell for three-and-a-half hours then released without charge.

How typical of the Left--punish everyone who doen't conform to their demands, and how typical of schools to allow themselves to be their tool for enforcement. Political correct speech is nothing but a weapon of the Left to stop debate from the Right, and it never applies to the Left--but, you knew that. However, the Left considers every foul word to be acceptable and even applauded when flaunted in public or used to describe President Bush.

Maybe the Left is a bunch of pansy retards.

Air America Radio - Air Today, Gone Tomorrow

We knew that this was coming, despite denials. Air America has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to allow the network to reorganize its finances without creditor pressure. It shows liabilities of $20 million against assets of only $4 million. Didn't anyone notice the bleeding taking place?

Among the creditors wanting to be paid is Al Franken, who is owed $360,750. (Ohhhh, too bad.) Other creditors include limousine firms, for (yep, you guessed it) their limousine liberals. No surprise there.

The new CEO of Air America, Scott Elberg, had this to say:

"Nobody likes filing for bankruptcy. However, this move will enable us to concentrate on informing and entertaining our audience during the coming months."

Informing and entertaining their audience...? Isn't what they should have been doing to avoid bankruptcy? Maybe they were just a little, just a little mind you, too liberal. However, I'm confident that they arrogantly see themselves as being right and that the masses of listeners who tune them out are just stupid.

Maybe most people know that if you applied the principles espoused by Air America to our government, our country could be bankrupt just like them--after we taxed "the rich" out of existence, of course.

Perhaps if they fired Al Franken and hired Rush Limbaugh, who knows how to turn a buck, they could make a go of it. That must drive them crazy.

Nobel Peace Prize Misses Opportunity

Yesterday Cindy Sheehan announced that she was a finalist for the Nobel Peace Prize, but today we get the sad news that she did not win. I wanted her to win just to show how ridiculous the Nobel Prize Committee had gotten, as if making a previous award to Jimmy Carter wasn't enough proof. Anyway, just having her as a finalist says enough.

Usually, people get extra consideration for the prize if they show a disdain for America and especially the Bush administration. I was sure that Cindy Sheehan was a lock and that this was a great opportunity for the Nobel Prize Committee to stick their collective thumbs in the eye of President Bush.

Oh, the guy who did win, a Bangladeshi professor named Mohammed Yunus, developed a loan program titled "Microcredit" for poor people who can offer no collateral or other financial security. Sign me up! Maybe they'll give Ms. Sheehan one despite her high paying job to stalk the President.

Here's what U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said of the loan program:

"Microfinance is not charity. It is a way to extend the same rights and services to low-income households that are available to everyone else."

Look at that again. Kofi Annan said that unsecured loans are a right. Try telling that to my bank, which only gives loans to people who can prove that they don't need them. I demand my rights!

Urgent Reason to Stop Smoking

GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

Oh, yes. Smoking also causes cancer and heart disease, if you thought that global warming wasn't enough reason to quit--but, the global warming fanatics, who defend Gore, might label you as a wacked-out "skeptic" to think that cancer is to be feared more than global warming.

Found at Drudge Report

P.S. "Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats."

Put me down for none.

9-11 Memorials: Left Lacks Class

To people on the Left, it's okay to abandon dignity and decorum in any situation to promote their radical political philosophies. If you don't like it, too bad, because they intend to force it down your throats, anyway. But, they prefer to do it in secret until it's too late to change, and they've done it again and will do it again without decent people remaining diligent.

They did this with the memorial at ground zero and they pulled it off with the just dedicated 9-11 memorial in Arizona. The Left used a memorial on 9-11 to make political attacks against President Bush and the war on terror. Here are some samples of inscriptions on the newly dedicated 9-11 memorial:

“You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles.�
“Congress questions why CIA and FBI didn’t prevent attacks.�
“Erroneous US air strike kills 46 Uruzgan civilians.�

You do see how those inscriptions serve to be memorials to our nation and the 9-11 victims, don't you? Well, if you do, you're doing better than me.

An approving commission member stated that the inscriptions were factual, and therefore acceptable, as determined by an Arizona State University history professor, presumed to be Dr Noel J. Stowe. These "factual" statments include the just mentioned "You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles.� Is that a fact, an opinion, or did he really not review each statement?

How do others feel? Well, here's two takes on it, and I'll allow you to guess which approves and which does not.

Daily Kos: Righty Blogs Fume Over AZ 9/11 Memorial

Flopping Aces: The Moonbat Arizona 9/11 Memorial (With pictures)

Just once, I would like the Left to show some class and quit injecting their radical politics into every situation, no matter how inappropriate or unrelated. I might as well wish for a billion dollars. It's too bad for society and a blow to dignity and civility, which they never had. Just continue to watch them to stop similar attempts in the future.

Political Quiz [Updated & Updated & Upd....]

Today's pop quiz on world politics has one question. Good luck!

Question:
Who recently labeled President Bush as a devil, imperialist, fascist, assassin, stupid, criminal, killer, madman, and genocidal murderer?

Possible Answers:
A. Hugo Chavez
B. Sen. Harry Reid
C. Al Franken
D. The New York Times
E. All of them
F. Answer is A, but the rest didn't disagree.

Voters should be concerned when you cannot distinguish the crazed rants of a South American communist dictator from the impressions given by a major U.S. political party and its mouthpieces.

[Update]

Rep. Charlie Rangel, a Harlem Democrat who has called President Bush just about every name in the book including "our Bull Conner," just concluded a press conference on the Chavez anti-Bush speech in which Rep. Rangel said, "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."

Well, when I heard him, I admit that I was surprised. Maybe he hates the competition on attacking President Bush. But, Rep. Rangel did let some people of the world know that we may have squabbles among ourselves, just like a family, but that doesn't mean that we want outsiders to come here and attack our family members. That's how it should be. Let's see how many other Democrats and members of the media follow suit.

[More]

Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a "thug"

One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil. "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday. "Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

If this keeps up and if Michael Moore comes out to defend President Bush, then I'll know that I've entered "The Twilight Zone" or "Bizarro World."

UPDATE AGAIN (But this time from GM) Well, that didn't take long, for ole Tom Harkin (DIM-0-crat, Iowa) to up the ante:

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy."

What an ass this man really is. What happened to politics stops at the waters edge?

[More Chavez Insults]

Oh, no! How bad can it get? Further talking about President Bush, Hugo Chavez said, "He walks like John Wayne." And, what's wrong with John Wayne? Chavez is producing more gas than Citgo.

Well, here you can see the kind of person that Hugo Chavez does like....

I'll take John Wayne any day, thank you.

Dem Majority = Struggle to Impeach Bush = Chaos for America

Democrats deny it, but the signs are that they will make the impeachment and conviction of President Bush a priority if their party wins a majority in Congress. Power and payback combined with irrational hatred takes precedence over urgent issues such as fighting terror, energy independence, and building our economy. The efforts of the Democrats and the radical left are so pervasive, that a search engine reveals over five million results when the words "impeach Bush" are entered. Shouldn't the American public know more about this rarely mentioned Democratic agenda and know that the Democrats will put their interests ahead of doing work for our nation?

Consider the following examples of attempts to bring the Left together on impeaching President Bush, and this Left is the same coaltion of people who now control the Democratic Party.

As a light starter, maybe you would enjoy the site of Impeach Bush Coalition, which includes a sidebar stating, "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power"--certainly true and an impeachable offense in their minds.

Perhaps, another site titled Impeach Bush would be more interesting, because it offers arguments and talking points to the great unwashed about how to counter any rebuttal to impeachment--besides the usual statements that someone is stupid and full of s#!+, which is what I usually hear. Oh, their arguments don't have to be truthful or logical. They just have to be stated repeatedly and with force to shut up critics. You just cannot find such precise instructions on conservative sites, whose readers can make up their own minds and arguments.

Maybe the Demoratic progressives (I love that tag) at Democrats.com will convince you that Bush needs impeaching for reasons from their long lists which extend from "Lying about Iraqi WMD's to Congress and the American people" to "Reading 'My Pet Goat' during the attack" to "Turning the world against the United States" (Oh, my!) to "Packing the courts with right-wing judges to outlaw abortion" to "Stealing the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004" (and, isn't their loss of power to him the real issue?) on to "Allowing global warming, which will cause massive environmental damage" continuing to "Illegally 'outing' CIA agent Valerie Plame, an important anti-terrorism official" to, hold on, "Letting a gay male prostitute roam free in the White House." (Don't tell Barney Frank about that one.)

These sites offer t-shirts, bumper stickers, and coffee mugs for the cause. Liberals are suckers for these things.

We could pass these impeachment activists as nuts, but they are the ones who are now in control of the Democratic Party. In addition, there are serious people on the left who push this. For instance, consider an article in The Nation titled "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" by former Democratic representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who gives us this how-to formula for impeachment (emphasis added):

Mobilizing the nation and Congress in support of investigations and the impeachment of President Bush is a critical task that has already begun, but it must intensify and grow. The American people stopped the Vietnam War--against the wishes of the President--and forced a reluctant Congress to act on the impeachment of President Nixon. And they can do the same with President Bush. The task has three elements: building public and Congressional support, getting Congress to undertake investigations into various aspects of presidential misconduct and changing the party makeup of Congress in the 2006 elections.

So far, this scenario is playing out just as scripted, and Democrats throughout the nation are holding non-binding votes (of course) to impeach President Bush. If and when the Democrats gain a majority in the House and possibly the Senate, the impeachment issue that they don't mention in their campaign ads will move to the front of their priorities. Then, reasons that the Democrats used to oppose the impeachment of President Clinton will not matter, anymore. (Can we just "move on?") The Democrats want power and want revenge, and those matter to them more than anything that is good for the United States.

They need to admit it but won't, and the American voter needs to know their plans to put the party ahead of the real work for our country. The way to stop them is to reject their agenda and to support their Republican opponents. The fall elections are important and the future or America is at stake.

Who do you want in charge--people who have kept us from another terrorist attack or people who think that attacking our President takes priority over America's interests and protection?

The Democrats and the Left have been very busy. What are you going to do about it?

The Path To 9-11: The Left Is A Comedy For Our Times

The subject of 9-11 is frought with pathos. It is both a sad remembrance and an act of war. But, on the 5th anniversary of this tragic day, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) has decided to show a production of a "Docu-Drama" called "The Path To 9-11". Now, in and of itself, that is nothing remarkable, the history of the socalled "docu-drama" is long and comical for its historical inaccuracies and/or outright fiction, witness the productions of "Death Of A President" in England for example (which many have defended on the grounds of "free speech").

Yet, let a shibboleth of the left be challenged (Clinton was a terrific - though perhaps oversexed president) and watch the fur fly. The reaction of much of the left is almost comical, nay, it is entirely comical and I'll take a few snippits from here and there to prove my point.

First up my friend Marc Cooper (a self identified "progressive") posts "The ABC's of Panderning" in which he states:

L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten perfectly nails the shameless shlockmeisters at ABC who think it's just spiffy to capitalize on the pain of the 5th anniversary 9/11 to broadcast one more manufactured piece of dreck -- a two part "docudrama" on the Twin Tower attacks powered by blatant right-wing spin.

Now, Marc is a friend of mine, and my 'blogfather' if you will and I highly respect him and his blog (though that does not apply to some of his more vociferous commenters). But gee could the rhetoric be more appalling, could the prose be a little more turgid? Understand please, as a progressive, Marc is no friend of the Bushes or the Republicans, but having said that, he is no friend of the Democrats either.

More amusing (if that is indeed the word) are some of the comments from that blog entry. This one for example:

NeoDude Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am

When has Right-Wing Nationalists (SALUTE!!!), in any Western tradition, not exploit a national tragedy?

Oh gosh, "Right-Wing nationalists." Codewords for fascists perhaps? Oh, the humanity!

How about this one (if you are a fan of conspiracy theories you will LOVE this one):

r. l. c. Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am

It really is obvious what happened here. These projects don’t get made overnight and when ABC Entertainment (NOT the news division) OK’ed this Bush was riding high - just been reelected and had increased majorities in both houses of Congress. And what were the pundits saying? Why the GOP wiould be ruling the roost for a long time to come and the Dems were in “Disarray� (a town near Vegas, I believe). So why not get in bed with right wing crazies? They would be in position to help the Mouse with issues like Intellectual Property and Media Ownership. Its not personal, just business.

(Hell Robert Iger was a Clinton Contributor, as were a lote of ABC/Disney Execs)

Sure the Dems would complain but what could they do? Well its now two months from an election that will probably produce a tsunami for them and the miniseries don’t look so hot now does it? That is what happens when you listen to experts!

Can you say "off base?"

But Marc's commenters are rational compared to others (although that is obviously not saying much). For example, Ann Althouse has a terrific post on some of these left-wing rantings here and she has a link pointing to something called "AMERICAblog" with some suggestions to sue, boycott etc Disney, ABC and Apple because of the so called docu-drama. A sample:

Certainly we're going to be live-blogging the show, Sunday and Monday. I'd appreciate those of you in Australia and New Zealand, if the show does air there shortly, please give us feedback as to what they cut and what's still in the show? It will give us a window as to what defamatory material Disney/ABC insisted on keeping in the show, which will help the lawsuits and our organizing.

Secondly, when the show airs in the US, if Disney/ABC still run it, I want to be sure a number of us are live-blogging it to list the defamation and the errors. If Disney/ABC insist on making a cartoon out one of the blackest days in America history, then we will hold them responsible."

Aren't these the same guys who "demand" freedom of speech on campuses and other venues? Does that apply only to speech from their side? Funny, I thought that speech was free for ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. I guess not. But I digress, as funny as the posting is, some of the comments (over 380 of them) are even funnier (or would stranger be a better word choice?) For example, this little bon mot:

I think iTunes is a really good place to hit Steve Jobs and Apple. It is direct and to the point, and it is not platform-based.

It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are offering this as a free download.

They would notice immediately if there was a slack-off in sales.

I have already written to Steve Jobs and the iTunes crew about this.
samia | 09.09.06 - 6:38 pm |

Wow, but this is mild compared to:

It appears that the governments use of the MSM for propaganda distribution is becoming extremely transparent. If we, as Americans, cannot stop this from happening, or becoming any worse, then we have lost the control of our public servents, and more drastic actions must be taken. Boycotts/leaflets/emails/videos/ demonstations etc.
Joe Danger | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 6:43 pm |"

Joe Danger, what a nom-de-pixel that is. Ok lets see, the government controls the MSM enough to make it a propaganda arm of the Bushies. So, how did the NYTimes sneak by with those "expose's" of our efforts to listen in to Al Qaeda or monitor financial transactions? Hmmmmm?

OK, how about this one:

As well as an organized and long-term boycott of Disney and ABC, we should use this opportunity to call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
nervesofsteel | 09.09.06 - 6:50 pm |"

OK, now that really is scary. The fairness doctrine was less about fairness than it was a way to silence the broadcasters (radio and TV) from airing any "political" speech because the so called doctrine would allow opposing views time on air. General Managers would have a scheduling nightmare and we'd loose talk radio and have to go back to elevator music. No thanks! One more reason not to elect Democrats or liberal Republicans. Oh, and by the way, the above commenter's nom-de-pixel is "nervesofsteel" More like "nerves-of-tinfoil." What a frightened little bunny!

The latest (well, maybe not the absolute latest) lefty "talking point" (I'm being generous here you understand) is that this is NOT the same as Michael Moore's fatuous "Farenheit 9/11" which everyone now says was a "polemic." A polemic?

WordNet
po·lem·ic (p-lmk): adj : of or involving dispute or controversy [syn: polemical] n 1: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) [syn: polemicist, polemist] 2: a controversy (especially over a belief or dogma)

Really, seems to me that at the time many on the left didn't see any controversy at all, it was truth and a terrific slam on the Bush Administration (note: Marc Cooper, always his own man, saw it different and the vast majority of his commenters agreed - at the time, not now; now it's just a polemic).

Again, I digress, the whole point of this little exercise is to point out the utter insanity of the left in regards to this docudrama. Reminds me of the "revised" words of the Bard: "The left doth protest too much, methinks."

Cross posted at The Real Ugly American

Update, I've only scratched the surface of the left's response to "The Pathway to 9-11" but James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has looked at how "The Left Remembers 9-11." It's an excellent read and I'm in awe of his article.

Liberals: Crow and Frogs Legs for Plame Banquet

Regarding claims and investigations about Valerie Plame and "Smokn' Joe" Wilson (and, I'm not saying what he smokes), imagine, for a moment, that a Republican had made charges against the Democrats similar to those that Joe Wilson and the Democrats made against the Republicans. Well, we would expect that the major media would have buried the story in that case. So, I'm not surprised that major media is burying the revelation that, as many knew, Joe Wilson, himself, was the one most responsible for exposing his wife's role with the CIA--and, oh yes, lying about his Iraq report.

Liberals Imagined Sign of Guilt at White House

But, somewhere away from the front page, the Washington Post comes forward to set things straight.

We're reluctant to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband....

I bet. Just like all the liberal Democrats are reluctant to return to the subject now that they've been proved wrong. But, major media didn't thinik that too much attention was devoted to claims with no proof before.

Then, the Washington Post does offer this accurate summary after, naturally, suggesting that high level Republicans must still be guilty in some fashion even absent a conviction. Note that the summary rightly goes beyond the initial charge of who identified Ms. Plame and addresses the fact that Joe Wilson also lied about his report on Iraq shopping for uranium, for which Christopher Hitchens received flak (to put it mildly) with his evidence, as did I whenever I referenced Hitchens' columns.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

Exactly. However, the paper doens't address who is supposed to reimburse taxpayers for the needless costs of the grand juries and the special prosecutor's investigations against our highest government officials. Would that be Joe Wilson or the Democratic Party--both who profited from the lies? Shouldn't the losers pay?

Then, the Washington Post offers this polite way to end the discussion on Joe Wilson:

It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate, indeed.

And, just who might have been among those who were telling everyone to take this seriously during the Presidential election? Could it beeeeeee Satan?! No, but that's close. It might be the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, CBS, etc.--not to mention the Democrats, Moveon.org, and every left-wing blog. How "unfortunate" that they got this wrong. Perhaps, they will do a better job of helping to restore the good reputations of those damaged. Don't hold your breath.

May I suggest a better a more appropriate way to end this matter. If you're one of those liberal Democrats who made outrageous statements against Republicans on this matter, follow these instructions.
(1) Print out this post.
(2) Write the word "crow" boldly across it.
(3) Eat it.

I like my way better.

Oh, and if we really want justice on this matter, let's allow Joe Wilson to have his wish:

Wilson wants leak culprit 'frog-marched'

Whoever released the name, Wilson said, "potentially engaged in outing a national security asset. "If that was determined to have been a crime, I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House," he said.

Joe Wilson, can you say "ribbet?" Those frog legs could be your own.

Leftist Loser Loathes Laws and Lets Loose

When candidates on the left lose an election, they can't believe it because they are certain that candidates on the right are stupid and crooked and that there is no way that a majority of voters couldn't see that. Therefore, the elections in which the Left loses must not be legitimate.

Witness Al Gore, who to this day maintains that he won Florida and, thereby, the election against President Bush. John Kerry today claims that Ohio's electoral votes were stolen causing him to lose the Presidency. Jimmy Carter is just a loser. So, it shouldn't surprise anyone when a leftist in another country loses the Presidential election and lives in denial.

However, now, it has gone to an extreme with the Left in Mexico. The losing leftist candidate, undaunted by the election results and courts, is creating his own parallel government and is calling for anarchy on the part of citizens.

Mexico Leftist to Create Parallel Gov't

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador...has vowed to create a parallel leftist government and is urging Mexicans not to recognize the apparent victory of the ruling party's Felipe Calderon. Some predict his parallel initiative — which Lopez Obrador's supporters call the "legitimate government" — could turn those protest camps into the core of a violent revolt, especially if the government tries to shut it down.

Of course, after violent revolt, the first item of business is to collect taxes. Hey, they're from the Left. It figures.

"Everything we do, from property taxes to permits to natural resources, will go through the 'legitimate government,'" said Severina Martinez, a school teacher from Oaxaca camped out in a tent.... Some supporters took out a newspaper ad Tuesday, calling on Lopez Obrador to set up his own treasury department and said all Mexicans "should channel federal revenues to the new treasury department."

Next, the loser is a little pertubed about private ownership and a free press. Stop the presses and kill the journalists!

Lopez Obrador's plan is to have his government help the poor, oppose privatizations and make the news media — which he has accused of ignoring him — more "truthful and objective."

What about a plan "for the children?" Doesn't he want to help the children?

How will the Left in Mexico take over? Will it be peaceful? Again, they're from the Left.

People close to Lopez Obrador say he is assuming the role of his hero, 18th century President Benito Juarez, who led a roving, "unofficial" presidency...before driving out the invaders and executing the French-installed Emperor Maximilian. Rosario Ibarra, a human rights activist who frequently shares the stage with Lopez Obrador at his rallies: "We just hope there won't be any need to shoot anyone." (emphasis added)

Hope? Well, why hope? Just don't go around assassinating national leaders.

I have an idea. If Obrador wants to set up a government that rules over Mexican criminals, maybe he would want to govern the illegal Mexicans here and take them back to Mexico.

If the Left worked as hard to honestly win an election as they do to protest those who do, maybe they would actually have a chance.

Now, I'm waiting for Jimmy Carter to proclaim this rogue government as the rightful one. As far as Gore and Kerry are concerned, they are probably mumbling, "We should have thought of this." Losers....

Does the Left Dream of a Bush Assassination?

In a movie that is likely the dream of those on the Left and possibly the seed for a copycat crime, the BBC is running a show on the assassination of President Bush.

Channel 4 to air Bush assassination drama
By Adam Pasick, Reuters, Aug 31, 2006

LONDON (Reuters) - Channel 4 is courting controversy with what it calls a "shockingly real" drama about the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush.

"Death of a President," shot in the form of a documentary examining the assassination, will use a blend of archival footage and computer-generated special effects to portray Bush in October 2007 arriving in Chicago during an anti-war rally.

...."I'm sure there will be people upset by it," (More4 boss Peter Dale) said. "I hope people will see the intention as a good one."

And, exactly what is the good intention here? By whose standards? Should I read between the lines and into the hearts and minds of the left to know the truth? Perhaps, deep in some of their evil thoughts and writings, character assassination simply is not enough.

It goes further than that. This docudrama will also premier (to rave reviews?) at the Toronto Film Festival--not known to be widely attended by conservatives.

Have people from the Left expressed such views before? Well, here's this from the ChronWatch, which documented a statement in The Guardian before being removed.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you? (emphasis added)

The Guardian claimed that the statement was intended as a joke. Aren't many a truth said in jest?

Let's consider other "jokes" of the left and our enemies (the same?).

A Tunisian astrologer (Hassan al-Sharibi's)...says President Bush will be killed by an assassin's bullet in 2005. ...However, the paper tempered its report by saying critics label Sharibi "a quack with flair who relies on logic and wishful thinking. (emphasis added)

Or, this....

Air America talk show hostess Randi Rhodes apparently crossed the line into the "put a gun to President Bush's head" camp...with a bad radio skit....

Bad taste, questionable intent, and dangerous possibilities--but, "it was just a joke." In fact, when I read that someone from the Left is against the assassination of President Bush, they often admit that it's because that they don't want VP Cheney to become President instead. That is their moral dilemma.

It seems that there are a lot of discussions and jokes along this line with the Left--but, I'm not laughing and neither should they. And, if they do dream about it, let's hope that no one acts out their dreams and hope that no one gets any bad ideas from them.

.

Film story found at Drudge Report

Russell Shaw - Is This Guy For Real?

WILL THE REAL RUSSELL SHAW PLEASE STAND UP?

Confused? Can't figure out if Russell Shaw is as his photograph on the Puffington Host, or a Pig, or a Death's Head? Well, after his latest, join the club, many others can't figure it out either. Because you see, Russell Shaw is a liar, a conman or perhaps evil in disguse as a member of the "reality based community" (or what ever the far left calls themselves these days). You decide:

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:

This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

This guy, despite his claims to the contrary, wonders if another terrorist attack wouldn't sicken enough Americans so that they would vote democratic and thus bring about all kinds of "goodies" that the Democrats want.

I can't figure it out, is he for real, a pig or a death's head? What say YOU?

School Assignment-Teaches Freedom or the Left is Nuts?

Imagine that you're back in school. A teacher wants you to write a paper on freedom of speech. That sounds patriotic. As inspiration, images of Patrick Henry come into your head. Well what was the inspiration that a middle school teacher gave his classes?

A Stuart Middle School teacher has been removed from the classroom after he burned two American flags in class during a lesson on freedom of speech.... Dan Holden, who teaches seventh-grade social studies, burned small flags in two different classes Friday and asked students to write an opinion paper about it.

How did the students react?

A sixth-grader said students were abuzz about the incident yesterday. "They just can't believe that a teacher would do that -- burn two American flags in front of the class. A teacher shouldn't do that, even though it was an example."

How did their parents react?

(A student told her father), 'Our teacher burned a flag.' I'm like, 'What?' " (her father) said. "When I was (at the school) at 8 a.m., the lobby was filled with probably 25 or 30 parents" who were upset, he said.

How did the ACLU react?

"...if a school is masking their objections to flag burning under the guise of safety, it raises questions about freedom of speech and academic freedom."

How did the teacher's union react?

"It was not a political statement and was meant to illustrate a controversial issue. To fire someone because of that would be inappropriate. It wasn't like he was taking one side or another."

How did the PTA President react?

...parents who called for Holden to be fired were "going a little bit overboard."

How does one school board member react?

...the flag burning was unnecessary and could have offended some students, including those in military families. "A teacher doesn't do that. It's just disrespectful." (Do you think? At least someone has some sense.)

How do you react?

Do we abandon hope for public schools?

Bush & Rove-Thermos Bottle Magic

It's amazing. Our President and his advisors are sooooo stupid--according to the left, but they keep coming up with brilliant, diabolical schemes-also, according to the left.

The Bush-Rove team acts like a thermos bottle. A thermos bottle can keep things cold--and, Bush and Rove can be stupid to them. A thermos bottle can keep things hot--and, Bush and Rove can be smart. As the joke says, "How do it know?!"

The latest entry on Bush-Rove thermos bottle magic comes from Arianna Huffington, who connects the White House problems in Iraq (stupid) to the media deflecting attention over JonBenet Ramsey (smart). How do they do it? Our buddy Arianna writes:

Thank God for the JonBenet story. We may not be getting any closer to solving the disaster in the Middle East, but at least we didn't have to hear much about it last week. ...When you've basically screwed up the world, and you're headed into a heated anti-incumbent election, it must be a gift from heaven to have a story that, essentially, shuts down the delivery of news.

And, if you doubt the connection to the White House, look at this comment from "LordMoon" under her post.

Without a doubt, this little bit of news was a Rove operation. After all, wasn't all the work done by Homeland Security?

Maybe LordMoon's last name is Bat.

It just kills the left if there is any news that takes attention away and interferes with their goal of overthrowing the Bush regime--as they call it. Nothing is more important that that. Why we might have to cancel the World Series and the Super Bowl so that people will be forced to stay focused on Bush crimes and stupidity. No one can be happy or have fun as long as we're in Iraq and Bush is President! Got it! Be miserable!

Why, even our soldiers in Iraq need to know how miserable they should be and what a failure their efforts for democracy have been--so, cut off all sports broadcasts beamed to our troops in the mideast until they understand. Are they going to believe what their own eyes tell them or view the situation through the lens of U.S. media and the left? The troops can just watch CBS and have no entertainment until we cut and run pull out. This is just another way that the Democrats could "support the troops."

It must be awful for liberal activists to go through life with few people taking them seriously and, worse, laughing at them. In the meantime, I'll still be concerned for our nation, but my life will go on--and, things will work out better than the doom and gloom crowd predicts.

Well, back to the original issue, maybe Bush and Rove are smart. And, compared to ideas of the Democrats, anything looks smart. Hey! Maybe Bush and Rove are behind the Democratic Party, too!

:

Tip of the hat to reg for inspiration of this post.

On 9-11, Church Takes Page from Cynthia McKinney

I remember when Ronald Reagan said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." In like fashion, now that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has published a book saying that President Bush organized the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, I can only lament that the Presbyterian Church has left a lot of level-headed believers, rather than the believers leaving it. (See Presbyterian Church publishes 9/11 conspiracy theory.)

As I was raised in the Presbyterian Church, I have some right to speak of my disappointment of the direction that the church took long ago and the sad state that it appears to be in now. And, it pains me to see what has happened. Left-wing politics replaced scripture when the seminaries were taken over by political, not religious, zealots. We've seen similar patterns in our universities, but they had no moral compass to guide them like the Bible, which makes the Presbyterian action and direction that much more disappointing.

It's so sad when churches and societies are brought down by people who obtain positions of control and responsibility and who abuse those positions to push misguided philosophies and false gods. Believers may join other churches when it becomes too much for them, but most everyone has no choice but to live in the crumbling societies wrought by the political left.

If I have misread anything, then please let me know. Until such time, I can only pray that God gives the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) a new beginning and a new direction to serve Him and to spread the gospel rather than continuing to spread dissension and killing the church in the process.

I have no intention of telling you how to believe. I'm just saying what I believe on this matter. However, if you have similar desires for our churches, all of them, and our nation and its leaders, I invite you to join me in prayer and fasting for them.

Our churches and this country can be renewed--if we care enough.

.

Other sites reporting or commenting on this issue:

The Layman Onlne
Christianity Today
World Net Daily
Belief Net
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

You're the Coach

You're the coach and have to make a crucial decision. What do you do?

Here's the set up:

You are the coach of a youth baseball team.
Your team is playing for the championship.
It's the ninth inning.
Your team is holding onto a slim one run lead.
The other team is at bat and your team is pitching.
There are two outs--one out away from the championship.
But, the other team has a runner on third base in scoring position.
And, their power hitter comes up to bat.

Here's what you have to decide as the coach: Do you pitch to the power hitter, knowing that he has a realistic chance to tie or beat you, or do you intentionally walk him to get to the next batter for an easier final out and the championship?

Think carefully about it before reading further.

-----

Oh, there is one piece of information that I didn't mention...if you walk the power hitter, then the next kid up to bat, who should be an easier out, is "a cancer survivor who needs a shunt in his brain just to live."

Okay, now knowing that, is your decision the same?

Read more about this and see the related stories (and a poll) from the source where I found it. Visit our friend's post: DADavocate - Needing A Reality Check.

What did you decide and why?

Thoughts From Down Under

Received an e-mail from a friend from "Down Under" and I thought it worth sharing.

Bottom line: McKinney...good riddance, the woman is a lunatic.

Lieberman...to borrow a phrase from a guy at work...they have exchanged aged, hardened and strong oak with cheap clapboard.

Lamont is a loser, a one issue wonder,a tyro...and a novice.This is not a game and it is not a party either..Lamont has no issue agendas with domestic problems, no policies, no initiatives and no plan besides Hate Bush.

All he has is his platform: the Iraq War. Great...he's their "anti war poster joy"...but on everything else...a lightweight..an unknown. He better know his shit or he will be left looking like a klutz Lieberman was on the VP ticket...an influential, capable and experienced hand. One of my managers put it best:

"Never kick an old dog...he may not be as fast to attack...but trust me, he knows more ways to hurt you....how do you think he got to be old."

By being meaner and deadlier...and by not leaving any enemies behind...alive.

Kicking Lieberman will be a mistake they will regret very soon. In a balance of power standoff...he's the maverick. As an independent, free of the DLC...he will be in a position to hurt the Dems...badly.

Or help them hurt themselves....remember this, Mr Lamont...Mr Lieberman knows where all the skeletons are buried.

You and the Dems just screwed the pooch.Come November...you will see just how badly.

/s/ Brendon.

Brendon, thanks and I agree. November will be the time to watch the Democratic party explain away, once again, how Bushco stole the election, not how they "screwed the pooch."

What a Shock! The Left is Hateful

What we already knew that a Democrat is just finding out....

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton and a Lieberman supporter, complained Tuesday about anti-Lieberman comments he found on liberal blogs. "I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong."

Welcome to the club of the hated and insulted.

Media Distortion - It Gets Worse and Worse

Reporting distortions by the media is like keeping up with Bill Clinton's women. The media has so many transgressions that it becomes tedious keeping up with them, and the large numbers might have the effect of numbing people to this problem. Nevertheless and without great fanfare, here's the latest, courtesy of the Left's Least Loved, Michelle Malkin:

It's not just Reuters

The NYTimes issues a correction to its pieta online photo caption: "...The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed."

Just a slight difference. To continue, here's more....

"Fauxtography" alert: NYTimes and USNews;
plus Time and Reuters' Issam Kobeisi

Take a close look at the cover of US News magazine. The image and the story context imply that (an armed Lebanese man) is at the scene of an Israeli airstrike or explosion caused by IDF artillery. The same guy appears in a photo taken by none other than ex-Reuters camera man Adnan Hajj. He's pointing a gun at the site of the explosion. Only guess what? The site is...as Allah points out, a garbage dump.

Well, it stinks.

This is too much, so I simply refer you on. Malkin's site has other examples, but you may want to check a particular reference from her, Free Republic's "Fauxtography" list, which keeps up with the on-going story of reporting fraud to customers by the major media. If you're going to read all of them, get comfortable first. This could take some time.

Where's Ralph Nader and Michael Moore when you want someone to blow the whistle on corporate wrong-doings?

Caught Again...and Again: Media Fakes Another Picture

Yet, one more faked photo from Lebanon courtesy of Reuters....
found here and here at "The Jawa Report."

This one involves the alteration of a picture of an Israeli F-16 dropping a defensive flare to decoy surface to air missiles; but, the picture was altered by adding multiple copies of that flare for dramatic effect, and then the picture's caption said that these were actually missiles being fired from the jet against a city in southern Lebanon.

This fake reporting makes things worse. It inflames passions and wrongly increases public opinion and world pressure against the United States and Great Britain to modify and moderate mideast policies to suit the phony reports rather than the real situation. The press, in effect, rallies the public for its agenda rather than that of our nations--and, they're not the same.

This irresponsibility of major media should be a concern of the left rather than whether or not it gives fodder to conservatives. From Dan Rather's MemoGate to now, it has gotten to the point where I have to check the bloggers who catch the lies before I can believe the articles from the major media.

The world needs honesty in reporting, and we're not getting it.

Found at Woody's Blog (No, not mine. His.),
referencing The Jawa Report

Caught Again! Media PhotoShops War in Lebanon

The left has enjoyed days of rejecting and attacking conservative bloggers who claimed that photographs and film clips from Lebanon were phony. GM Roper's (the GENIUS behind this blog) blog-father Marc Cooper stepped in with: The five days of shameless, nauseating speculation by the right side of the 'sphere that the massacre in Qana was somehow staged now comes to a crashing halt. Cooper's minions joined him and attacked G.M. Roper, too.

Well, now it's time to look at the shameless manipulation of the truth by the media and how it "now comes to a crashing halt"...and, as caught by bloggers in the U.S. at that! How embarrassing!

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo

Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.'

Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog, which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote: "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone� tool to add more smoke to the image."

The Sports Shooter web forum, used by professional photographers, also examined the photo, with many users concluding that the image has been doctored.

Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged. (Emphasis mine)

Oops. That last sentence must hurt the self-righteous left which attacked the right for pointing out inconsistencies. Our leftist buddy, Randy Paul, titled lgf as the Little Green Fascists on Marc Cooper's post. Well, it looks like the "fascists" got it right on this one. Here's more if you enjoy this: PJM's ReuterGate!

Oh, don't think that hatred and disdain of conservatives that you observe is isolated.

Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut." It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities.

But, the left wants to attack bloggers who catch their lies. They want to concentrate on a drunk Mel Gibson, an actor, instead of a journalist who manipulates the news for a major outlet. Does anyone wonder why I distrust the major media and why it has become less and less relevant as a source of information?

I'm beginning to believe that Reuters represents many of the individual and collective views and expressions on the left. Those on the left hate light being shined into their dark corners of deceipt. Otherwise, where is the outrage?

Hezbollah Hid Behind UN Post

Are we surprised that the Hezbollah would try to hide for protection around a United Nations post? I am. They usually use civilians for that. Will that make any difference on the left's judgment against Israel for its attack at that site?

Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'
Canadian wrote of militia's presence, 'necessity' of bombing

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

The U.N. knew of this situation and should have pulled their observers out of the battle zone. But, maybe four lives to them are worth the propaganda value against Israel. Is there any question as to who the bad guys are in this struggle?

There Goes the Neighborhood

Cindy Sheehan has taken the insurance money from her son's death to move closer to her place of business.

Cindy Sheehan Buys Property in Crawford

"We decided to buy property in Crawford to use until George's resignation or impeachment, which we all hope is soon for the sake of the world," Sheehan said in a newsletter set to be sent to supporters Thursday. "I can't think of a better way to use Casey's insurance money than for peace, and I am sure that Casey approves."

So, if President Bush does not resign or is not impeached, maybe she can sell the land and donate the proceeds to a grieving father who actually supports the troops. Oh, contrast what Sheehan thinks that her son would want versus what this father thinks his son would want.

A soft-spoken suburban real-estate broker, John Prazynski didn't consider himself political and never expected to become a public figure, much less a pro-war activist. But in the year since his son Taylor, a Marine, died in Iraq, Prazynski has devoted much of his time to supporting the troops through fundraisers, two trips to Camp Lejeune, N.C., and interviews backing the war effort.

"I could easily have gone the other way," Prazynski said. He says his activism is a tribute to his son, trying to "make something positive happen out of something so negative. That's what Taylor would want us to do."

Do you suspect that this father might have a better feel for a fallen soldier's desires to help those who fought with him? I believe that this man is driven by a sincere love of his son and his son's interests instead of personal attention for himself--unlike possibly some others. I wish John Prazynski the best; and, his help groups, Impact Player Partners and Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, deserve our support. Investments in people give better returns than five acres in middle Texas.

Then, Bush Must Be Doing Things Right for the U.S.

Poll: World Doesn't Respect Bush

Americans generally approve of President Bush's handling of the current Mideast crisis, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll, but six in 10 say the president is not respected by foreign leaders.

A Blaze of Hypocracy

I don't understand the Democrats, well, actually I do, but I don't like it. In the interests of full disclosure as well, sometimes I don't understand the Republicans either, especially on spending, earmarks and their general obtuseness as to why they were elected and by whom.

But over the last several days, the hypocracy of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate has shocked even me; and that is saying something. No doubt, some of my more leftward friends and relatives will disagree with this statement, but they can't and still be honest withthemselves.

In todays "Best Of The Web Today" in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, James Taranto starts off with this bon mot:

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki spoke this morning to a joint meeting of Congress, and some Democrats seized an opportunity to burnish their credentials as supporters of Israel, CNN reports:

In a letter to al-Maliki, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York called the Iraqi leader's comments troubling.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

The senators said some Democrats are considering boycotting al-Maliki's speech before Congress.

"I want the prime minister to denounce what Hezbollah has done," Reid said at a news briefing. "I will lose a lot of confidence in al-Maliki if he does not denounce what Hezbollah has done."

Now, Durban, Schumer and Reid have castigated Bush and Company for at least the last several years over the war in Iraq, so for any of them to say "...raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," should make each of them shudder in shame. What the hell have any of the three done to "...play a constructive role in resloving..." the crisis or in "...bringing stability to the Middle East," exactly what gentlemen?

Taranto also notes these two quotes from Prime Minister al Maliki:

"We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."
"What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force that Israel has--and Lebanon does not."

Taranto then compares those two statements to two statements made by none other than that great America basher Kofi Anan:

"[Israel's] excessive use of force is to be condemned."
"While Israel has stated its military objective is to hit Hezbollah's infrastructure and physical strength, it has, in the words of the Lebanese prime minister, torn the country to shreds."

As Taranto says, where is the Democratic condemnation of Kofi Anan? I'll add to that "Should we hold our breath?"

Today, Howard Deaniac (dean+maniac) called al Maliki an(gasp anti-semite. Oh my goodness, the chair of the Democratic Party calling someone else an anti-semite. Well, Mr. Deaniac, you of course know that Arabs are semites as well, so, if you say bad things about an Arab does that make YOU an anti-semite? No? Hypocrite!

I'm also curious as to how the Democrats including the four mentioned in this post can harp about Israel's self defense against Hamas and Hezb'ollah in the "occupied territories" and defend Israel in it's battle against Hezb'ollah. Is it possible that the Dems have read the polls and understand (understand.... you've got to be kidding...ed!) that the vast majority of Americans support Israel in the war on terrorism and the Dems want to play politics? Nah, that can't be, we all know that the Democratic Party is full of "plans" for ending the carnage. Just ask John F. Kerry:

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened,"
[...]
"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," [...] "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

Oh really Senator? Let us harken back to 2004 when you had a "plan" for the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular. Did you ever, and I mean even once mention that "plan" to anyone so that after you lost it could have been implemented and lives saved? Could you have been bull-s***ing us? Or, more likely, were you merely mouthing things you thought would get you elected, oh, say like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam in '68 in the runup to the election or perhaps like John Kennedy's tag football games that you tried to emulate by playing catch on the tarmac so often? Just who did you think you were fooling Mr. Sportsman? Yourself or the public? If it wasn't so much BS then, where are the photos of you doing it on the tarmac NOW Senator?

Yes oh beloved readers, the Democrats are absolutely playing politics with this, and we have to call them on it. No wonder that the vast majority of American's don't trust the Democratic Party with our National Security. And no, I don't mean all Democrats, Zell Miller for one, Joe Liberman for another, and quite a few of my conservative friends who consider themselves Democrats.

As a side note, 11 Mayors in the Rio Grande Valley, the vast, vast majority of whom are Democrats have endorsed Rick Perry (R) for Governor. Interesting isn't it? Wonder what that portends for this solid bastion of Democratic voters?

Cross Posted at The Real Ugly American

A tip 'O The GM Derby to James Taranto

PETA's Abandoned "Americans" in Lebanon

Put this in the "Only from the Left" category. PETA is upset with America's leadership for failing to evacuate animals from Lebanon. This from PETA's web site:

PETA has sent an urgent letter to Brig. Gen. Carl Jensen—the military commander in charge of U.S. evacuation operations in Lebanon—begging him to instruct his officers to help evacuees take their animals with them to safety and bringing international attention to the government’s failure to serve all Americans trapped in Lebanon.

While the French government has made provisions for animal evacuations, the U.S. is doing the opposite.

Please immediately urge President George W. Bush not to break the law by encouraging abandonment of companion animals and to ensure the safety of all Americans in Lebanon by ordering that citizens be allowed to evacuate with their animal companions.

The reference to all Americans, meaning that animals belonging to U.S. citizens are also Americans, is straight from PETA. Their priorities for evacuation might be "Dogs and cats first, women and children next, Republicans never."

Well, PETA, once you get the vote for animals, I'm sure that some Democrats will demand government paid passage home for them. The only question that I have is that for a dog to vote, does he have to be 18 in human years or dog years?

“Cry ‘HAVOC’ and let slip the dogs of war!�

No Pasaran has an interesting commentary:

Western tofs given to marching in the streets and staging absurd, Self Indulgent antics for the death of their ideological alignments and opponents last month are in no position to demand (an odd sort of) peace this month out of the other side of their mouths.

He is right of course, the left has a lengthy history of asking for peace, but what is peace? Is it just the absence of war? Or is it something else. Is it justice where an ideaological strain doesn't seek to dominate the world according to some 7th century madman? Is it where any faith can take another faith on its own merit and let it be? Is it where one nation can freely trade with another with out fear of being overwhelmed? Is it where children and women have rights, where gay's aren't stoned or thrown from buildings, where reporters aren't beheaded just becuse they are Jews?

It is all this and more. But to insure peace, we must also ask whom are we dealing. With terrorists? With rogue states? Can anyone name a rogue state that has kept its promises? Nazi Germany? The Soviet Union? North Vietnam? North Korea? Iran? Saddam's Iraq? No, none of these. How about Hezb'ollah? Hamas? The PLA? No, none of these either. So, in the current strife I'm curious as to why the left, the EU, etc are asking for "restraint" on the part of Israel because of the death of civilians? Did those same entities ask for restraint on the part of Hezb'ollah or Hamas or the PLA? No? Why am I not surprised.

War is a very nasty business as numerous countries in the last 100 years or so have discovered when they tried to subjigate other peoples, and yes, that includes the invasion of Iraq. A very nasty business and people and children and women die and property is destroyed. John Stewart Mill noted:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Perhaps Patrick Henry, in a single speech said it best:

For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
[...]
"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry Hezb'ollah for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves..." (wording changed for effect)
[...]
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard terrorist shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." (wording changed for effect)
[...]
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

If this makes me a cheerleader for the Israelis or a "fighting 101^st keyboardist, so be it.

Why are people Leftists?

He answers the question better than I can, as any reason escapes me....

Why Are People Leftists?
By John J. Ray

The answer in five words: "Leftists need to feel superior".

Or, as T.S. Eliot famously put it: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." (From the 1950 play "The cocktail party")

But now for the details: (Follow this link to article and related writings.)

I haven't read completely the writings from John Ray and, therefore, cannot vouch for all that he offers; however, he started off with a lead-off hit in my book.

G.M. Wastes Money to Appease Liberals

No, not that G.M. He has more sense than that. It's General Motors. I have to hand it to G.M. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz for his honesty, when he essentially said that it's easier to give in than to argue with liberals obsessed with saving the Earth over all reason and costs. This involves Lutz's statements on hybrid cars:

Hybrids are technologically of doubtful benefit, and expensive, but necessary from a political and public relations point of view.

Toyota has said, economically, hybrids make no sense. The reduction in fuel [consumption] does not pay for the technological content and cost of the vehicle so therefore economically it remains fairly nonsensical, so that's the left-brain analytical argument.

The right brain is it's the popular thing to do, many people believe that if we all drove hybrids the world would suddenly get cooler again and then it's the patriotic thing to do because if you drive a hybrid you will no longer be funding the Arab terrorists, and so forth.

So, with all those beliefs out there, you have to do a hybrid for public policy reasons.

Then, Lutz said in regards to G.M. entering the hybrid market after Toyota:

For Toyota, it was a huge, huge, immeasurably valuable PR coup. (GM's decision not to pursue a hybrid car) was a mistake from one aspect, and that's public relations and catering to the environmental movement.

Besides private businesses spending money just to make liberals feel good, how about government spending to subsidize hybrid cars? Well, people who purchase hybrids receive tax credits (not deductions, but the higher credits which are dollar for dollar) of around $2,000. If the car is so efficient and great, then why are U.S. taxpayers having to help people pay for them?

How many other bad business and government decisions have been made to cater to the "environmental (anti-capitalism) movement?" How many more bad decisions will be made, and at what costs, if you let them continue to have their way simply because they will not shut up until you do?

There has to be an end to this insanity somewhere.

Why the Left is Ignoring the War

As per Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly:

1. It sparks unusually vicious comment threads

Completely understand Kevin No reason to rile up the natives.

2. The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable."Both sides need to ratchet down the rhetoric and rein in their own extremists." Aside from being pointless, there are only just so many ways you can say this.

You are absolutely right Kevin. You could instead try the truth for once; like Israel pulled out of Gaza unconditionally and in return got hundreds of rockets launched from Gaza into Israel, incursions from Gaza and Lebanon where Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped.
This is not a case of both sides being equally guilty. Hamas is guilty, Hezbollah is guilty, The Lebanese government and the UN are guilty of not disarming Hezbollah 6 years after Israels withdrawal from Lebanon (honoring their part in a UN resolution) and after said UN resolution called for Hezbollah to disarm. And of course Syria and Iran are guilty of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.

3. The conflict is fantastically complex, and the partisans on both sides are mostly people who have been following events with fanatical attention to detail for many decades.

Actually it is quite simple as I explained above. In all fairness yes if you wish to go back to 1967, or 1948, or before the birth of Christ it gets very complex. We don't apply those standards anywhere else in the world. Only in this case is the world guilty of applying such twisted logic and nonsensical arguments.

4. As with the conflict itself, punditry is heavily dominated by extremists on both sides.

That hasn't ever stopped you before.

5. Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism.

No doubt some hardline supporters of Israel are guilty of this. In my experience more often than not the anti-Semites are the ones who get accused of anti-Semitism.

Although I find your explanations severely lacking you certainly did a much better job than anyone else on the left, so I guess you should be commended for it.

Just curious, when exactly do you think you might be ready to talk about this war?

After Israel bombs Syria? After Iran attacks Israel? After one side or the other employees some form of WMD? Would any of those events rise to a level of importance worthy of the left's attention?

Unfogged Agrees with Kevin's rationale, and cites Hugh Hewitt as one of the right wing extremists.

Kevin's first commentor isn't very kind.

A political blog will be pretty lame without an opinion on an active war.

This post is also available at TheRealUglyAmerican.com

What Does A Living Wage Look Like?

UNDER THE SPREADING CHESTNUT TREE THE VILLAGE SMITHY SNOOZES,
NO HORSE SINCE 1933 HAS COME TO HIM FOR SHOESES.
The Democratic Party and the left (not always the same thing) have been agitating for a substantial raise, to a "living wage" the federal minimum wage law. Currently, and for many years, the federal minimum wage has been $5.15 an hour and the generic left (in which this time I'm including the Democrats) would like to see that raised. I've seen suggestions ranging from $6.00 an hour up to $12.00 an hour. When anyone suggests that price increases passed on by businesses and or job loss from small firms may result, the outcry typically is that Republicans and Conservatives (again, not necessarily the same thing) hate the poor and don't want the rich to have to pay anything out of their pockets. And, depending on the blog you go to, the language to describe generic conservatives (this time I'm including Republicans) is a whole lot worse.

Well, the fact of the matter is that there will be a tradeoff. Companies, large and small will either have to raise prices and/or lay folk off in order to keep profit margins within the realm of feasibility. What's that you say? No they won't? How silly, of course they will. No politician is going to pass a law limiting profit (unless it's big oil and a windfall profits tax - and you see how well the last one worked) because they know that the funds for re-election come essentially from the pockets of investors and owners of small and large businesses. So, ask for the moon, you have as much a chance of getting that.

But, I digress, back to the issue of the minimum wage. Many states and localities have already passed minimum wages for residents in their respective political subdivisisons, so why aren't the generic leftists prodding them for increases and the rest of the country to catch up? Simple really, again politics. To effectively "buy" votes for the Democratic Party, there needs to be a national stage for Democratic politicians to run from.

It just won't do to have a bunch of Democrats touting a higher minimum wage as a local issue (although they are doing so for state wide initiatives). Ahhhh, but "The Democratic Party forced the administration to raise the minimum wage can be a national cry and be much more effective. But, that is still not the whole answer.

The rest of the answer lies in the amount of the raise. If $9.00 an hour is "OK" but not where it should be, why stop at $9.00, or $10.00 or even $15.00? Let us go all the way to $30.00 an hour for all entry level jobs, regardless of skills, education, or experience. Those don't matter anyway, because a minimum wage is just that... the minimum that you can pay someone for work received. But, you know, I've never had a generic lefty say "OK, you bet, let's do it." They all say something along the lines of "Don't be ridiculous." But, I'm not being ridiculous! If that, or some other figure exceeding a figure of say $18.00 an hour is what it takes to reach the "livable wage" criteria, why heck, lets do it.

If we did however, while the Democrats could claim victory for that election's pandering, it wouldn't hold up over the long term. No, not even close, in fact the resulting economic displacement and chaos would be horrendous. You see, the Democratic party really doesn't give a damn my dear, about the "little guy" they only want policies that insure his vote. Look at all the "grand coalition" of special interest groups called the Democratic Party and where they are today. The Democrats ruled congress and the senate from 1954 through 1994, with a single exception of the U.S. Senate on the coattails of Ronald Reagan's landslide, and that only lasted a couple of years. Are those groups substantially any better off now than they were then? Blacks? The Poor? The Hungry? The Homeless? Labor? Or, as it seems to me the Dems are running on the same issues that they have always run on? Except of course when a Democrat is in the White House. Whole different ballgame then friends.

So, why not raise the minimum wage all the way at one time? Because they want to use that issue again, and again, and again. $7.00 an hour now, in a couple of years, another $0.75 then another a dozen years after that. Each time decrying the lack of a livable wage. Yeppers dearly beloved readers, a platform they can run on forever, and never be held accountable for. No wonder the horses haven't been to the smithy since '33, same old tired platform, same old tired policy.

Thoughtful comments from generic lefties requested. No vitriol please or I'll take your comment down.

More on the Minimum Wage and other egregious fibs from my good friend Donald Luskin on my blogroll, who writes "The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid." By the Bye, if Luskin isn't on your favorites list, he ought to be.

"A Convenient Untruth" About "An Inconvenient Truth"

When I read the Associated Press article titled "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy," I went to see the substance of that claim and realized that it was more leftist fluff than fact. Well, someone else has done a little more research and spilled the inconvenient beans on the crusade with "AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE", which adds additional information, like: "The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President." Maybe he got free popcorn along with some grants, too.

I've noticed how in every interview that I've seen of Al Gore lately that, when questioned about scientists who have doubts about human induced global warming, Al Gore quickly shuts the questioner down with the same phrase, "The debate is over." That's it. Period. It reminds me of a congregational saying: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware of anyone who died and made Al Gore God. So, excuse me if I still express doubts on his claims and respect debate on the issue.

Fire Breathing Preacher Adds Hot Air to Global Warming

Just the other day, I was reading "Discover" magazine (which I'm not renewing) and came across an article by one of Al Gore's disciples, who had this praise of Al Gore in a feature titled "FILM: Idlers on climate change, watch out! Al Gore is on the warpath." (bottom of page.) In that article, the writer said this (emphasis mine), "While much of this movie may be old hat to savvy Discover readers, it is most definitely worth watching by skeptics...."

Okay, if I accept Al Gore and global warming hysteria without further debate, then I'm savvy; but, if I'm a skeptic then I'm not savvy. Maybe the truth is that a "savvy person" keeps an open mind, listens to all points of view, and comes to logical, rather than emotional and false, conclusions.

Count me as a savvy skeptic.

What Took So Long?

...but, appeals still exist.

Follow the history of leftist professor Ward Churchill from The Denver Channel in its story (excerpts below) through chronolgical links under that which start in January, 2005.

The University of Colorado announced Monday that it will dismiss controversial professor Ward Churchill.

"Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado Boulder," CU Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano said Monday afternoon.

Churchill, who ignited a firestorm by calling some of the World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns" in an essay he wrote after Sept. 11, 2001, has vowed to sue the school if he was fired.

How many chances of lying and insubordination would your employer give you? It's about time that he got kicked off of the reservation.

A Lexicon For The Left

I absolutely LOVE liberals. If it weren't for liberals those of us who can think rationally would have nothing to laugh at. For example, I was reading about the Governor of Maryland today and the words used for him was "Moderate." Now, the Governor of Maryland is a Republican, he is also conservative and has beaten back many of the really stupid, anti-business, anti-citizen, anti-just about everything except taxes, and that he has beaten back many pro-tax initiatives of the heavily Democratic legislature. So, to tick off the conservatives, who are somewhat upset with some of the Governor's actions, they call him a "Moderate." As if that will keep the conservatives from voting for the only Republican Governor elected in a very blue state for some time. So, let us begin:

Abortion: Does not exist, in its place is an action of a woman exercising her right to privacy and full control over her body. Full control over her body does not apply to the concept that unprotected sex may lead to pregnancy and if it does, it’s the damn guys fault anyway.

Cold Blooded Murder: Prejudging any action by a soldier in a combat zone if and only if done before an investigation is concluded, charges have been filed or guilt (if any) ascribed to a specific individual. If a Republican administration initiates an investigation before anyone else knows about a suspected illegal action but charges are not filed against the President, Vice President, Karl Rove or a high ranking General, then it is called a Cover-up.

Cover-up: See Cold Blooded Murder immediately above.

Culture of Corruption: Any Republican for any reason or for no reason at all. This opprobrium does NOT apply to Congressman Jefferson (D., La.) or Congressman Jim Moran (D., Va.) or any other individual at the local, state or national level if they have a D behind their name.

Free Speech: Any thing uttered in any circumstances by a Democrat. Given the same circumstances when uttered by a Republican it is called Hate Speech.

Hate Speech: An utterance by a Republican that points out the error of thinking as applied to “affirmative action,� “abortion,� or “the marriage amendment/laws,� or anything else the Democrats dislike.

Indictment: Any legal action that should have been taken against Karl Rove but wasn't (See also Culture of Corruption above).

Democratic Moderate: A Democrat who toes the Democratic Party line and adopts the Democratic Party Talking Points regardless of that individuals voting pattern (Republicans use the term Liberal). This applies to everyone except Joe Lieberman (D, Conn.) who is according to the Kossacks and DUers a turncoat. It does not apply to Senator Zell Miller (D., Ga.) who gave a fine address at the Republican Convention in 2004, he is also a turncoat.

Lied us into war: This applies to any mention of WMDs or any other reason mentioned by Bush, Cheney, Rove, any neo-con or any member of either Bush Administration. Of course, they cannot pin down any specific lie, the fact that not only the United States intelligence had them in Iraq, German Intelligence had them in Iraq, French intelligence (yes, that is an oxymoron) had them in Iraq, Russian intelligence had them in Iraq and British intelligence had them in Iraq. That doesn't matter, nor does it matter that Saddam Hussein (pieces be on him like his protégé Zarqawi) tried really hard to convince everybody that he had them.

Moderate: A conservative Democrat who they don't want to use, or a liberal Republican they want to stay put. Sometimes it also means a conservative Republican who has some "moderate" bits to his record so the other Republicans won't vote for him. (and yes, him as used here, is the inclusive pronoun - PC language be damned)

Pro-choice: Any action taken to insure that the prospective mother does not give a live birth. (See also Abortion)

Tax cuts for the rich: Oh, this is a goody. Of course the Democrats cannot explain why the amount of taxes paid by the rich has increased, nor can they explain why tax revenues have substantially increased to the point where the deficit may be halved 3 years earlier than forecast. According to the Democrats, if you make more than the poverty level, you are rich and all of your income should be turned over to them for them to decide how it should be spent. If you are Paul Krugman, you are just clueless anyway.

Speaking Truth to Power: A term that originally meant telling someone in power something they didn’t want to hear and that could get the speaker tossed in jail, or executed or loss of something significant. For Democrats, it is applied to scoundrels such as Jack Murtha (D., Pa.) who mouth off at the administration about anything that the Democrats think will elect them in the fall or give them back the White House in 2008.

Whistle blowing: An act by a Democrat or Democrat sympathizer that exposes anything a Republican administration does, up to and including exposing national security information that would land anyone else in jail. This specifically does not apply to anything a Republican does, that is called illegal outing of a covert operator (read spy) in order to get even with a former ambassador who lied about his actions anyway and has been exposed by numerous bodies as a liar. When legal charges are applied to members of the media it is called “suppression of free speech.�

This concludes today’s lesson, I’ve talked about these things in the past and this message/lesson has been brought to you as a public service. If you have additional words to add please add them in the comments section. That’s all of my time and I thank you for yours.

MURTHA, YOU SCALLAWAG: PART III

Texas Rainmaker has a delightful expose of the connection between the desires of al Qaeda and Jack Murtha (Moonbat, Pa.). TR notes a communique from al Q that notes:

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi’a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance’s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance’s assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance’s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

According to Texas Rainmaker, Murtha's comment:

“We’re not making progress,� said Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a Marine Corps veteran who has emerged as his party’s leading opponent of the war.

I don't know about you, but in THIS case, I'll take al-Q's word over Murtha's!

Oh, and read some of the comments at Texas Rainmaker's post too. Already some are "questioning" the authenticity of the documents. Heh, and double heh! They are so damnably predictable.

MURTHA, YOU SCALLAWAG: PART THE SECOND

Gateway Pundit has some disturbing news. Disturbing for Jack Murtha that is. As the Instapundit would say: Heh!

A teaser:

The primaries for the 12th District were held on the 16th of May. Most of Murtha's public words and appearances about Haditha occurred afterwards. His allegations are since proving to be less than accurate.

In a portion of the state of Pennsylvania where people have ancestors and family members who've fought in every war from Phillip's War to Iraq, such words and public statements by Mr. Murtha will not be well received. (Think: Patriotic "Zell Miller" Democrats.) Mrs. Irey is quite properly bringing that issue to the voter's attention.

Now go read the whole thing. You won't regret it.

Hey Jack, feeling a little discombobulated? Good!

"Hijacking Haditha"

Just go and read, then come back and say what is on your mind: Putting It In Perspective!

Thanks Michael, for your guts, for your eloquence and for your courage and your honest reporting of the facts.

Of course, my opinion is that the MSM couldn't wait to make this into My Lai II, because that is all that fits into their world view.

Fake "But Accurate" Military Tale

Another so-called military person became the cause célèbre of the anti-American left, after he said that he was ordered to commit atrocities against civilians and made statements such as, "Kids threw rocks at us before and the guard command officer told us to take them out." and "I'm so disappointed in my country. I'm ashamed to have actually served in Iraq." Wow! What a perfect spokesman for the left. But, he is more perfect than we realized, because he is also a liar.

It turns out that this person who claimed to have been an Army Ranger and served in Iraq has no Army record that anyone can find. What gave him away was that his uniform in an anti-war film was about as believable as that of Roger Murdoch (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) in another film--"Airplane." "Airplane" would clearly have been a better and more believable movie.

Here's the link to the story: Another Fake Soldier Tale Debunked, by Michelle Malkin, May 24, 2006

I'm sure that the left is furious that this was discovered. Yeah, it's fake, but so what? Isn't what he said really true, so what does it matter? It's for a "good cause." This is just another example of lack of ethics or situational ethics practiced by the left.

Who Killed Global Warming?

The debate about global warming isn't really dead, but it is on life-support. Oh, I'm not doubting that it is a little warmer today than it was say 5 or 10 years ago, I'm talking about the disaster that the owlgores and true believers and global warming alarmists (GWA's) would have you think is coming in the next decade or two. It ain't gonna happen folks, it just ain't.

One of the more delightful, articulate and scathing bloggers to take on the GWA and the dishonest reportage of the GWA's is Scott Burgess who writes The Daily Ablution. In his latest, Scott takes a whack at dishonest journalism. Specifically, a whack at Johann Hari who attempts (poorly as it turns out) to discredit

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish statistician whose 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist argued - inter many alia - that, while anthropogenic global warming was a reality, Kyoto represented a sub-optimal means of dealing with it."

According to Scott according to Lomborg, "anthropogenic global warming was a reality..." a point I'm not willing to concede but be that as it may, there is an increase in temperature overall according to a lot of reputable scientists. Of course, there are a lot of reputable scientists who disagree also looking at a larger temperature and climate pattern.

For example, one can legitimately claim that there is global warming at least in the northern hemisphere as we go into summer (and a cooling in the southern hemisphere).

Much of the argument is whether it is anthropogenic or not. I don't know, I'm not a climitologist. I have reported on the statistics of global warming however and I do know something about that. Other sites such as CO² Science have much more data, as does a site on the opposite side of the argument, Real Climate.

But, I digress. Scott notes:

In the time honoured tradition of agenda-driven hacks everywhere, Mr. Hari begins by softening up his target with a bit of the old ad hominem:

"The problems start with the fact that - contrary to how he is presented in the media - Lomborg is not a scientist. He is a statistician with a degree in politics. He has never produced any original research in the fields of biology, ecology or environmental science."

Of course, Mr. Lomborg has never claimed to be a scientist; and, having reviewed quite a bit of media coverage of his work over the last five years, I can't recall him ever being represented as such (it seems that perhaps Mr. Hari's expertise concerning straw men may stem from a certain self-awareness).

Followed by:

Mr. Hari continues:

" ... and the only problem is to lift the developing world up to our standards. But when Hurricane Katrina - almost certainly a product of global warming..."

"Almost certainly"? How, pray, does Mr. Hari know this? A Katrina scenario had been predicted for decades (I specifically recall being warned of it when I lived in New Orleans in the 70s). It's worth remembering that the storm was only a category 3, with maximum sustained winds of 121 mph, when it made landfall - and that "the sustained winds over all of metropolitan New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain likely remained weaker than Category 3 strength," according to the National Hurricane Center (emphasis added).

In other words, by the time it hit New Orleans, Katrina was a garden variety storm that just happened to take the worst possible track, an ultimately inevitable event that had long been feared. Any global warming connection is pure speculation, and claims of near certainty are utterly spurious."

You really ought to go read the whole thing. I'll also note that if Scott isn't on your regular reading list, add him. You won't be disappointed.

Something for Everyone - Left and Right

Recent reports about our military have both good news and upsetting news for people from both sides of the political spectrum.

First, something to disturb the left and to please the right:

Americans Enlist in Record Numbers from Strategy Page

May 16, 2006: In the last seven months, the U.S. Army has met or exceeded all of its recruiting goals. In that time, over 160,000 people have enlisted, or re-enlisted. The total strength of the active duty and reserve forces are 1.2 million men and women, all of them volunteers. ...the biggest asset in the recruiting effort has been the world-of-mouth from the troops themselves. They believe in what they are doing, and accomplishing.

I guess that the left's violent protests, running military recruiters off of campuses, and fighting military access to mailing lists of high schoolers have not been totally successful. If we could just re-direct the left's rage and fight against our real enemies, we could win the War on Terror in half the time.

Now, something to upset the right and to encourage the left to say "see, see!":

Murtha: Marines may have killed Haditha civilians in cold blood from Army Times

May 17, 2006: Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood� after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19.

...A March 27 Time magazine report published claims by an Iraqi civil rights group that the Marines barged into houses near the bomb strike, throwing grenades and shooting civilians as they cowered in fear. The report prompted calls for a Pentagon probe. “It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,� Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

...Like the Haditha incident, the Fallujah shooting sparked outcries from human-rights groups regarding actions by U.S. forces against Iraqis.

Do you believe that? We're always the bad guys to the left--and they eat it up. Oh--no mention by various "human rights groups" about kidnappings, murders, and suicide bombers on the other side.

Well, we try to be fair and occasionally give both sides of issues. No matter where you fall, this news will likely create a reaction. What's yours?

Sheesh...No, Sheehan - What's Really Important

Did you know that Ms. Sheehan is still overlooking this one little detail?

From Snopes:
Claim: Casey Sheehan's grave is as yet unmarked with a standard headstone.
Status: True.

She can travel the world denouncing the war and the Bush administration, she can go have her picture taken with anti-American politicians in Venezuela, she can vacation in Hawaii, she can buy a new VW convertible....she can accept $250,000 in death benefits from the DoD, but she's just grieving too much to even mark her son's grave...after all, it's only been two years.

I must have missed this one in the New York Times. Sheesh.

Thanks to Delftsman at Emigre with a Digital Cluebat
(Also, acknowledgments to RightWingrocker and Michelle Malkin)

Global Warming - Cause and Effect [UPDATED]

*

Left: Cause of Unwarranted Hysteria................Right: Effect of Natural Changes

....................

Time's latest contribution to hyped-up hysteria, as pictured on the left (appropriately), starts with this headline on global warming: "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point."

On the right, is an animated map from the Illinois State Museum showing the retreating North American ice sheet over the millennia after the end of the last ice age.

You can draw one of two conclusions: Either (1) the Earth has been warming naturally for the last 11,000 years or (2) prehistoric man was bad, bad, bad, and started the chain of events leading to melting glaciers today.

Early Man Emits Carbon into the Atmosphere

Innocent or guilty? Did prehistoric man trade his comfort for the devastation of future generations?

First Church of The Democrats comes to GM's Corner

GM Roper of GM's Corner is fighting cancer. A group of bloggers silently known as the South Park Republicans have joined GM in his fight. to raise money in order to fight cancer. Over the next few weeks, the Liberal Church will be travelling from blog to blog and all donations made will go to aid St. Jude in their fight against cancer. If you would like to donate by snail mail, St. Jude makes it available to do that. Cancer can be a very costly battle and your help is greatly appreciated. Please add a "Fight On" ribbon to your blog. Donations can be made by clicking on St. Jude's while the plate is passed. Find the participants of "Fight On". South Park Republicans

First Church of Democrats

Continue reading "First Church of The Democrats comes to GM's Corner"

Death To The Bacterial Revisionists And Their Fellow Travellers!

BACTERIAL MOTIVATIONS AND MULTICELLULAR RELATIVITY is the title of a new post by Dr. Sanity. I gotta tell you, I laughed so hard I hurt my ribs and when you've had part of your lung removed, that ain't any fun at all. Although to be honest, it was really a minor pain and the laughter was well worth it. Dr. Sanity refers to the "always enigmatic" Gagdad Bob's post at One Cosmos. To better understand Gagdad Bob's pov, here is a sample, but go read the whole thing:

The ideals of abstract thinkers are utopian and unworkable because they forget all about embodied human existence--about reality. It is no coincidence that the great totalitarian movements of the past century--communism, nazism, and now Islamism--were and are the products of intellectuals. On the other hand, Christianity takes seriously the idea that we are unavoidably embodied and imperfectible. As a matter of fact, Judeo-Christian metaphysics solves the otherwise insoluble philosophical stalemate between idealists and materialists, because a logoistic reality means that the Word is made flesh: that the ideal is located in the real, not in some abstract, utopian beyond. The world is neither ethereal nor earthly: it is earthereal.

Abstract ideas are designed to understand and describe reality. But intellectuals turn this around and begin using their abstractions to judge reality. And if reality falls short, they don't abandon their ideals but jettison reality

The post excerpted above is priceless. But then Dr. Sanity has an incredible epiphany and a deeper understanding and appreciation of political correctness and multicultural, multicellular relativism. and takes off for the wild blue yonder. I'll give you a taste but then click on the "taste and read her whole post. Now, where did I put that anti-biotic?

Dr. Sanity:

Homo sapiens' multicellular delusions of superiority are completely unjustified due to the uniquely destructive and bad behavior displayed by most of the members of animalia chordata mammalia primata homo sapiens -- particularly those who reside in the United States, the home of the least sapien.

What makes us think that our pathetic little animalia kingdom--and in particular the imperialistic chordata phylum-- is better than the EU-bacteria or archaebacteria kingdom? Do bacteria have wars? Do they kill each other? NO! They live quiet lives, of peaceful and communal, self-sacrificing propagation. Their eight phyla are as deserving of life as homo sapiens; in fact they are more deserving and their right to exist predates ours by many millennia, thus their rights supercede any "rights" presumed by the animal kingdom.

Gulag Nation - Black Spring

Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o'erwhelm it, to men's eyes.
.......................................................Shakespere
Marc Cooper rightly takes the left to task for the lack of blogging about the 3rd anniversary of the arrest and subsequent trial/imprisonment of 75 persons in Cuba. Arrested as anti-revolutionaries for handing out library books. Library books for Pete's Sake!

More impotantly, this issue has also escaped much of the MSM and the right blogs as well. Everybody is pointing to the 3rd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. But anti-war demonstrations have turned out to be more anti-American and/or Anti-Brittish/Australian demonstrations or just plain ole I hate Bushychimpmchitler. But this post is not about Iraq, it is about our friend Fidel in Cuba.

The Crime:

Between March 18-20, 2003, authorities rounded up about 100 dissidents and independent journalists.

Of those, 75 were quickly tried and sentenced to between six and 28 years in prison, including Cuba's best-known female dissident, economist Martha Beatriz Roque. Of those, 15 were gradually freed between April 2004 and December 2005.

Black spring is reported in a few blogs, newspapers, but not much else. And this is a shame, because it highlights the utter hypocracy of both the Castro regime in it's cry against the United States, and our supposed stand for human rigthts.

What do I mean by this? Simple. If we are to be the "City Shining On The Hill" then we also must condem the totalitarian forces that beset the peoples of the world. I'm probably going to be declared a heretic by my fellow conservatives, but I think that the way to bring Castro and his band of thugs down is to increase contact and trade with Cuba. Russia wasn't changed by the ability of the Communist government to control it's people, Russia was changed by the inability to keep up with the freedoms of the west. Likewise, the Cuban people if given free access to freedom as proposed by free trade, access to real information as opposed to contrived and controlled information of the Cuban government will opt for more freedom not less. In this, our refusal to deal with the people of Cuba has been a total failure. Cuba needs access to the benefits of a free society, and that and that alone will change the Cuban government.

Others reporting on the third anniversary of the Castro crackdown include: Wall Street Cafe, Uncommon Sense, Blog for Cuba, Marathon Pundit, Cuba Net and Babalu Blog.

V.P. Cheney Causes Hunting Accident, But The Left "Shoots from the Lip" and Misfires

As you may have heard, V.P. Dick Cheney accidentally peppered a hunting companion with birdshot. According to Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch were the accident occured: "It broke the skin. It knocked him silly. But he was fine. Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there..." According to reports, the injured man is in stable condition and being treated at the hospital. It was an accident, but a very interesting part is how gun control advocates immediately reacted with hysteria and irrationality.

Release by Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

James and Sarah Brady Comment on the Vice President's Hunting Mishap

"Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him," said Jim Brady. "I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog - and I thought he was an idiot."

"I've thought Cheney was scary for a long time," Sarah Brady said. "Now I know I was right to be nervous."

There you have it. There was a hunting accident--an accident--caused by the Vice President and "activists against gun violence" make Dick Cheney their latest notorious threat to the safety of humanity. I know that Jim Brady suffered brain damage in the attempted assassination of President Reagan, but what's the excuse of others who hate all guns except those held by government?

By the way, check out the linked article covering this story. You have to love the picture of V.P. Cheney that they selected. Certainly, no bias intended, huh?

On a somewhat related and ironic note, in 2001 there was a Saturday Night Live opening skit where President Bush discussed the future of the nation:

President George W. Bush: ...Okay, listen.. I'm just gonna get this Address thing over with. As we assess the State of the American Union today, we have reason to hope, because.. [ takes out a map which shows California and Florida as islands, Texas in Communist Mexico, and the Great Lakes on fire ] Holy crap! When did all this happen?! Wow.. the Great Lakes are on fire - even I know that's not good. [ laughs ] Okay, America, we got a lot of problems. I ain't gonna lie to you. But with the help of Vice-President Dick Cheney..

Voice of Advisor: You killed him in a hunting accident!

You're going to hear a lot of irrational reactions and accusations from the left about this accident. Just remind them that no one drowned and that no one "committed suicide" on the hunt.

Miser Refuses to Sell Land to Support Family - Who is he and why?

What do you think of a miser who owns more land than he needs or can maintain, and yet he refuses to sell any of it to support his family? He says that he wants to save the land for his future grandchildren, but his own children need money for school and living needs today. In fact, he even demands that other people pay his bills so that he does not have to sell the land at all. What kind of selfish idiot is someone who hoards possessions rather than handle his obligations? Well, you ask, just who is this miser? Why, he's no more than liberals and the Democratic Party that are fighting efforts of President Bush to sell excess and useless federal land to raise money for schools and roads in those rural counties hurt by reductions in logging on nearby federal lands. The Democrats are opposing the sale of government property partly because they don't like the seller, President Bush, and they don't like possible buyers, businesses that can make this property productive. Here are excerpts about the sale in a story from AP with underlined emphasis added:

The Bush administration on Friday detailed its proposal to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and other public land to help pay for rural schools in 41 states. The land sales, ranging from less than an acre to more than 1,000 acres, could total more than $1 billion and would be the largest sale of forest land in decades.

...Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy, said the parcels to be sold are isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet the needs of the national forest system. The administration expects to have to sell only about 200,000 of the 309,000 acres identified Friday to meet the $800 million goal, he said. "These are not the crown jewels we are talking about," Rey said in an interview.

The proposed sell-off would total less than half of 1 percent of the 193 million-acre national forest system. The money would be used for roads, schools and other needs in rural counties hurt by sharp declines in timber sales, in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Land Management, which previously said it will sell another 125,000 acres, said BLM land to be sold would be identified at the local level. The lands are typically part of a checkerboard pattern of small parcels surrounded by suburban or urban areas, Interior officials say, and have been identified as holding little natural, historical, cultural or energy value.

To be fair, let's see what is being said by those who oppose the sale.

At The Wilderness Society, Dave Alberswerth said the plan would privatize treasured public lands to pay for "tax cuts to the rich." Another spokesman, Mike Anderson, said, "I am outraged, and I don't think the public is going to stand for it for one minute. It's a scheme to raise money at the expense of the national forests, the wildlife, recreation and all the other values that Americans hold dear. It's the ultimate threat to the national forest."
(My response: Oh, it's a scheme! And, the government is selling a checker board of less than 200,000 out of its 193,000,000 acres, and that's a threat to the national forest!?)

From the Democrats, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA called it "a terrible idea based on a misguided sense of priorities. ...Here the administration wants to pass more tax cuts for the rich, and to pay the bill, they want to sell off public land - our nation's natural heritage." Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM said, “"Our hunters, anglers, campers and other recreational users benefit from � and depend on � access to public lands,. Selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a short-sighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in federal land management policy. ...just to make the administration’s budget numbers look better.�
(My response: So, let's not sell excess land and get the money from "the rich" instead, and let's not help Bush balance the budget. Well, it sounds like wealth envy plus intentions to sabotage a balanced budget.)

Lynn Adler runs the Sacramento-based Mountain Lion Foundation, which is dedicated to preserving open space for big cats. She says each mountain lion needs 100 acres of space- about the amount of acreage that's proposed for sale in the Angeles National Forest."
(My response: Yeah, let's raise more mountain lions close to where people live. Children and pets taste good to them!)

At the Huffington Post, the headline states, "National Forest For Sale! Bush Admin. To Sell To Highest Bidder..."
(My response: Gasp! How awful. Not to the highest bidder!)

And, besides the benefits listed in the article above, what are we hearing from those who support the sale?

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy, said, "This is a reasonable proposal to take a small fraction of a percentage of national land which is the least necessary and use it for those in need and achieve an important overarching public purpose."

Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, said "Private property will end up in the possession of those who value it the most. That is an iron law of economics."

The administration says this plan will extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, signed by President Clinton in 2000 and set to expire next year, by using the land sales to offset the program's cost. This act has sent over $1.5 billion to counties hurt by reduced timber sales on national forests.

My view? If this country has excess assets, then it should sell those assets to offset the national debt and fund worthwhile programs. In addition, private enterprise can use this land productively and pay local property taxes that the counties don't get now. Unlike the miser, there is no need for hoarding--unless you're a Democrat who can think of one need...to hurt the Republicans at the expense of our citizens.

Filibuster, John Kerry, Kennedy and Judge Alito

There are a lot of things in politics that deserve a rip-roaring belly laugh; JFK excuse me, John Friggin Kerry being chief among these. Kerry is most noted for being elected as Mr. Flip-Flop of 2004. Of course, he was running for president at the time, but so what?

Kerry (and his partner in crime - T. Kennedy) have decided that they would like to filibuster the vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Senator(s) can you say STUPID? You two have got to be the dumbest of the dumb.

From the CNN folk comes this:

Sources close to Kerry, who lost to Bush in the 2004 race, told CNN that the senator was calling colleagues from Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum. He announced his decision to support a filibuster Wednesday at a meeting of his Democratic colleagues.

The White House believes Alito's supporters have the 60 votes they need to block any filibuster, spokesman Steve Schmidt said, and suggested that Kerry's move was designed to buttress a possible 2008 presidential run.

The Washington Post's Charles Babington reports:

Several prominent Democratic senators called for a filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination yesterday, exposing a deep divide in the party even as they delighted the party's liberal base.

The filibuster's supporters -- including Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts -- acknowledged that the bid is likely to fail and that Alito is virtually certain to be confirmed Tuesday. But they said extended debate may draw more Americans' attention to Alito's conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters.

"Judge Alito will take America backward, especially when it comes to civil rights and discrimination laws," Kerry said in a statement issued by his office. He added: "It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court."

The Democrats are divided? News to me! On the other hand, that famous entertainer Will Rogers once noted: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Senator Kerry, you greatly remind me of a saying by Dietrich Bonhöffer:

Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction... Against folly we have no such defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use...

So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel.

H/T to Stop the ACLU

The Press - Hoist On Its Own Petard

Scooter Libby is planning to subopena a number of journalists in his defense trial. This poses a series of tough decisions for the press for a number of reasons. Timothy Phelps has a lengthy (but worth the time) article in the Columbia Journalism Review regarding the background of the Plame case, including his own actions and the actions of others.

Of course, as a member of the press, Phelps is not happy about the possibility of two things. One, that Libby may call journalists for testamony, and two, that the press doesn't seem to have the "protections" under the first amendment that it did in the past. Phelps does acknowledge that there are indeed limits on the ability of journalists to protect sources, but decries the lessening of that.

It should be noted that much of the current brouhaha is of the making of the journalism profession. They were less concerned about the "leak" than about (in general) being able to hammer the Bush Administration for wrongs (real or perceived). In fact, two journalists, David Corn (The Nation) and Paul Krugman (The New York Times) raised a big stink about the illegality of "outing" Plame.

Even Phelps says she was in a role "undercover." However, nothing could be further from the truth. Undercover typically means assignment in the field, pretending you are something you are not in order to gather information necessary for our national security. Plame worked in a "secret" department of the Directorate of Operations, but was not "under cover" as she drove to work daily, was doublessly photographed many, many times by our adversaries (who ever they may have been) and even people in her neighborhood knew where she worked. Too, her "cover" had been blown years before and that is why she was pulled from the field.

The press demanded an investigation until finaly, someone in the CIA asked for an investigation. Usually, these requests don't go very far as Phelps acknowledges. This time, however, with the reporters and Democrats up in arms, Gutless Ashcroft recused himself and recused his deputy from looking into the matter and appointed a Special Prosecuter to look into the "outing" of Valarie Plame.

As we know, that investigation went nowhere, despite calls for Karl Rove to be frogmarched out of the White House. Libby in what must have been a non-compos-mentos moment lied about who he talked to or when or under what circumstances and as a result he is up on perjury charges. If found guilty, I hope they throw the book at him. What could he have been thinking?

But, I digress. The issue is that the press, so rabid in their attempts to nail the Bush Administration (and denying that is ludicrous on it's face) is now going to have to testify in the Libby trial. Too damn bad. The old saw that you need to be careful what you ask for, because you may not like what you get couldn't be more apt.

Libby's right to a fair trial trumps, it seems to me, any 1st amendment protection the predatory press has. Phelps may have said it best:

The prosecutor seems to have had the last word about the First Amendment, at least for now. “Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality � no one in America is,� he told Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Hogan agreed. Of course, we never did have the right to offer complete confidentiality in every circumstance. But as a result of this case and others in the pipeline, the question now is, Can we honestly promise our sources anything?"

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to James Taranto

Deeply Troubling

Just so you know, I'm deeply troubled about the trouble the Democrats went to in order to find material on Sam Alito that was troubling. I wish they didn't have to go to all that trouble. Because of the trouble, the Democrats are in trouble about the troubling things that they didn't find.

One Year For A 180?

On January 30th, 2005 John F. Kerry (AKA "Do You Know Who I Am?" Kerry) was a guest on Meet The Press with Tim Russert moderating.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim--everything we put in--I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports.

This prompted me to write to Senator Kerry a number of times. The lead off letter was never answered, and of course neither were any of the others. Why he never answered me is totally confounding, I mean, after all he is a public servant, and he is wealthy and he does have staff to prepare letters for him to sign. I guess he has just been far too busy. So, I'll make another attempt and maybe I won't have to write another one next year at this time.

Senator John F. Kerry
304 Russell Bldg.
Third Floor
Washington D.C. 20510

My dear Senator Kerry: By now, I'm sure you are getting tired of not answering my letters to you and I know that you will soon be sitting down to your computer and firing off a good solid rejoinder as to why you haven't kept your promise.

I know that the pressures of being a United States Senator is more than likely difficult, and I'm sure that I wouldn't want the job, after all, having to primp and comb your "better hair" [than George Bush has] getting ready for makeup so that you can appear on Tim Russert's show and all. Where you can make statements like

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not..."

Oh, Senator Kerry, do you still suffer from the delusion that America would elect YOU to the white house? Senator, if that is your belief, you need to know that they have medications that can help you with that.

And Senator? I'm not the only one that thinks you opened your big fat mouth and firmly inserted your foot. Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters noted:

The Democrats need to answer for this outrage. Is it really the party position that American soldiers terrorize Iraqi civilians? Do they want the Iraqis to do it instead of us? Kerry has unmasked himself and his fellow anti-war zealots for the hypocrites they are. "

Senator, you have spent more time bloviating about things you know absolutely nothing about (Iraq, Sam Alito, NSA intercepts, etc.) than ever it would have taken you to sign your name to a Standard Form 180. Of course, if you did, we might be privy to who put you in for those medals, where you really were when you claimed to be in Cambodia, maybe even, after the truth comes out, the real provenance of the "magic hat."

I'm disappointed in you Senator, you have lied consistently, you have told untruth's when the truth would have served you better, you denegrated our troops in Vietnam:

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Then you tried to put on the hero's mantle for the 2004 presidential election, you posted pictures of 18+ officers indicating that all of them supported your candidacy when the truth was that only a couple did and a few were dead and probably would not have supported you. Though, truth be known, we cannot know. On the Podium at the Democratic Convention you had one of the Swift Boat Troops up there saying how great you were as his commander, when the reality is that he was severly wounded in the head before you came on board and returned to duty after you left. Is there no shame in you Senator Kerry? At long last, is there no shame?

I have of course written these letters to you knowing full well that you would not sign a SF 180. Or, that if you did, it would be for only part of the papers and those would only be released to someone who would keep cover for you. Can you say Boston Globe Reporters?

Senator, Mark Levin had you pegged as a leftist more than two years ago. Which of these don't you believe - or do you believe them all?

You Might be a Leftist If . . .
-You believe John Ashcroft poses a greater danger to America than Osama bin Laden.

-You think President Bush lied to the nation but his predecessor did not.

-You believe President Bush is too dumb to be President and Arnold Schwarzenegger is too dumb to be Governor of California, but the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Eddie Vedder and Jeanine Garofalo are qualified to discourse at length on foreign policy.

-You believe all conservatives are racist, but do not think minorities can ever succeed without Affirmative Action.

-You can't decide which is worse: the Patriot Act or the Patriot Missile.

-You believe Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Yasser Arafat were fairly and democratically elected, but President Bush was not.

-You root for prisoners when they escape from our oppressive prisons, but oppose allowing poor children to escape from failing public schools.

-You support every kind of "diversity" on campus, except political orientation.

-You support banning the smoking of tobacco and legalizing marijuana.

-You are enraged by the so-called mistreatment of Muslim prisoners (who have gained weight while dining on their specially prepared Koran-approved meals) at Guantanamo Bay, but believe the world should have stood idly by while Saddam Hussein filled mass graves.

-You have found where the right to an abortion is written in the Constitution but cannot find where the Constitution provides for a right to keep and bear arms.

-You support campus speech codes that ban pick-up lines and amorous gazes, but never spoke out against President Clinton's physical sexual harassment in the White House.

-You applauded Jimmy Carter for talking about human rights in foreign policy but opposed George W. Bush for doing something about human rights.

-You believe that trial lawyers taking 33 to 40 percent of a plaintiff's recovery in lawsuits is just about right, but the federal government taking this amount of our income in taxes is not nearly enough.

-You believe the former Governor of a New England state with 608,827 people is more than adequately experienced to be President in 2004, but the Governor of a Southwestern state with 21,325,018 people was completely unprepared in 2000.

-You agree with Toni Morrison that President Clinton was "the first black President," but didn't criticize Al Sharpton for recently labeling President Bush a "gang leader."

-You believe we could get more truth out of the Pentagon if only Don Rumsfeld were replaced by Mohammed Al-Sahhaf.

-You believe evangelical Christians are destroying America but don't feel threatened by the radical Wahabbi sect of Islam.

-When it comes to violent crime, you believe in hating the crime but loving the criminal.

-You support unlimited appeals for convicted criminals, but believe it is undemocratic for Californians to reverse their earlier mistake of electing Gray Davis.

-You believe U.S. exports of genetically modified foods pose a greater threat to African nations than corrupt dictators like Zimbabwe's Mugabe.

-You believe welfare is a fundamental human right and workfare is a human rights violation.

-You believe religion is a scourge on our society, but becoming one with Mother Nature by merging with the universal consciousness and harmonizing with lunar reverberations will save us.

-You believe President Bush is an environmental criminal for poisoning the water with arsenic, but have never complained about Saddam Hussein's devastating Iraq and Kuwait's environment by setting intentional oil well fires and committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs by draining their wetlands.

-Your car sports the bumper sticker saying that "it will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the military has to hold bake sales," but oppose allowing the U.S. military to volunteer recruitment tables on college campuses because of their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

So, Senator, I'm sending this to you a little early, the year isn't up yet, but I would guess you need time to get a copy of Standard Form 180 and sign it sometime in the next 15 days so that you can state to the world and your many fans (all 17 of them) that you have kept your pledge. You will keep your pledge won't you Senator?

Rational Thinking

My blog-friend Ogre asks "What is a right?" He gives a pretty damn good answer too! But some of his commenters have difficulty with the answers it seems.

Hey Chucky Baby, Who Do You Think You're Foolin'?

This morning, Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer (Dimocrat, New York) had the audacity to say something to the effect that no one had "made their mind up yet" on how they were going to vote in the Judiciary Committee on the Alito Nomination.

After listening to the questions from Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Durbin, Schumer et al, I can only ask one question: "Hey Chucky, how stupid do you think the American people are?"

Prediction: The Judiciary Committee will vote straight down party lines on Alito's nomination. Any bets?

Bloviation Continues

KENNEDY CONTINUES THE ATTACK ~ ALITO BENEFITS

The florid countenance to the left belongs to Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) who has written a hyper-partisan screed and actually had it published in the Washington Post, (you of course, are not surprised that WaPo published it.) The title is quite interesting if you will; "Alito's Credibility Problem" which might be OK if it came from someone with some shred of credibility himself. Kennedy's frequent bombastic attacks on anything and everything coming from conservatives, Republicans or anyone/anything to the right of Kennedy have made him a laughing stock for anyone capable of rational thought.

Kennedy has made a name for himself based primarily on scandals ranging from his infamous drinking bouts, to him and Chris Dodd and waitresses, to weekend parties with cousins and of course to Chappaquiddick. It has not hurt him that he had a famous brother who got elected to the presidency.

Ed Whalen, writing in Bench Memos for National Review Online has done a credible job of slicing and dicing the utter leftist nonsense from Kennedy. A sample:

After a thorough investigation, the American Bar Association unanimously gave Judge Alito its highest rating (“well qualified�) on its criteria of “integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.� But that hasn’t stopped Teddy Kennedy from cobbling together a nasty hit piece on Judge Alito (“Alito’s Credibility Problem�) in today’s Washington Post.

Kennedy’s attack is a jumble of distortions, inventions, and non sequiturs. In the interest of brevity, I’m going to refrain from revisiting Kennedy’s own credibility. Here’s a quick response to Kennedy’s five stated areas of concern:

1. Alito’s 1985 job application essay sets forth a classic statement of American principles: “I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values. In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decisionmaking authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate.�

Kennedy asserts, without anything resembling an argument, that these views “raise serious concerns about [Alito’s] ability to interpret the Constitution with a fair and open mind.� He also claims that Alito tried to distance himself from those views by telling Kennedy that he “was just a 35-year-old seeking a job.� A well-informed source tells me that Kennedy’s quote is a concoction and that Alito has never tried to suggest that the 1985 essay was not a genuine statement of his views at that time.

Senator, Alito is NOT THE ONE WITH A CREDIBILITY PROBLEM...Get it?

What to make of the Senator from Massachusets? I'm not sure. It is obvious from the frequent gaffes he makes (even worse than the worst of the Bushisms) from the recent "Goldwater Presidency" (discussed in yesterday's entry "Bottle Of Wine..." a couple of posts below) to the hillarious stumbling almost drunken "Osama Obama" (he was trying to come up with Barack Obama) that Kennedy isn't hitting on all cylinders. Yet, the good people of Massachusets keep electing this embarrassment. He has been kicked out of school for cheating, he has been complicit in the death of a young woman, he has been a philanderer and yet...and yet, he keeps getting elected (along with the equally embarrasing, sloppy saluting, pseudo-hero, "the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.") (and a tip of the GM Chapeaux to James Taranto). What can be wrong with the thinking peoples of Massachusets?

Abraham Lincoln said that you can "...fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Obviously, Kennedy and Kerry are trying to prove Lincoln wrong, I'd guess, when it comes to Massachusets politics.

From The Mouth Of Lileks!

James Lileks writes screeds like no one else writes screeds. His most recent is a scathing attack on the silliness, pomposity and sheer stupidity of progressives. Taking off from Mark Steyn's "It's the Demography Stupid" Lileks pounds the left and progressives into the ground. A sample:

The only thing Western Civ really gave the world was slavery, imperialism, war, and capitalism; the fact that we have eliminated or diminished or abbreviated those sins is due not to anything inherent in Western Civ but some overarching, free-floating Enlightenment unmoored from the cultures that produced it. The world began in 1968, and owes nothing to what came before; if we wish to combat the regrettable enthusiasms of some other cultures whose animus appears religious, we should deconsecrate the cathedrals in order to set an example and light the way. Religion is the enemy to the transnational progressives, because religion holds up laws and codes and rules the wise burghers of Belgium cannot amend.

So you have Swedish clothing designers putting a tag on hot jeans with a skull and an inverted cross, with the express intention of pointing out the “evil� of Christianity. "It is an active statement against Christianity," Bjorn Atldax told The Associated Press. "I'm not a Satanist myself, but I have a great dislike for organized religion."Atldax insists he has a purpose beyond selling denim: to make young people question Christianity, which he called a "force of evil" that had sparked wars throughout history.

It goes without saying that selling anti-Christian iconography to European fashionistas is a brave an act as reducing the food pellet allotment to your pet hamster; a true act of bravery would be yanking the dead wildebeest out of a lion’s mouth.

Now, go read the whole thing!

Navy Surrenders to Chaplain - Allows Prayer in Christ's Name

You hear about "heroic" actions of hunger strikes when the dominant media wants to honor some criminal or socialist using that tactic to attract attention to a problem. So, why has the media ignored the latest success story about a hunger strike conducted by a chaplain? Well, maybe he represents the wrong cause for them...Christianity. Here's a follow-up and success story to an earlier post on political correctness in the military barring prayers "in the name of Christ."

Navy surrenders: Chaplain eating

The Navy chaplain who has gone without food for 18 days in protest of the Navy's policy encouraging "inclusive" prayers at public events says he has received permission to wear his uniform and pray in Jesus' name outside the White House tomorrow and will end his hunger strike by taking communion there.

Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt had said he would not eat until President Bush signed an executive order allowing chaplains to pray in public according to their individual faith traditions. Later, he said if the Navy would allow him to wear his uniform in public and pray in Jesus' name he would end his fast. Klingenschmitt told WND this evening he has received a letter from his commanding officer giving him permission to do so.

It's a partial victory in a surprise battle by the military against religious freedom for our soldiers. Now, when will President Bush sign an Executive Order to guarantee this religious tolerance and freedom in the military for all? What's the problem?

The Insanity Continues

We, Woody and I (and of course you my beloved readers) have been subjected to a recent onslaught of comment spam from a group (although it is probably just one individual) most likely at a particular site called Thinking Meat. Feel free to go there if you wish, but I won't link there because I don't want to give them traffic. Let them get their own. At any rate, this particular commenter, this time by the name given "Jonah Dotson (who may even be real [Nah]- at least this time I got a real email address - fake and anonymous though it be - Meatbrain, just how dumb do you honestly think we are?). But, I digress, this time I will take part of his comment and turn it into a post for two reasons, the first, to have fun with a real honest troll, and the second, to put lie to his claims. Now, I will intersperse my comments into his as appropriate and in red so that you will be able to follow it a little easier. Also, to make it a little easier I will set his comments in blockquotes so that it will be more than obvious (Dotson/meatbrain needs all the help he can get).

FIRST POST:

This is a great concept, GM, and you are to be commended for it. We all know that anyone who does not hold fast to the tenets of the right is mentally unbalanced. Wouldn't it be best if those who disagree with us were removed from society, for their safety and ours? This was the policy of Soviet psychiatrists, and it worked very well.

Actually Jonah, the practice of the Soviets was to incarcerate dissidents, sedate them heavily with such psychotropic medications as thioridazine, haloperidol, thorazine etc. When extra-pyramidal symptoms were frequently present, brought on by the anti-psychotics, they were also denied such medications as benztropine which can relieve some/most/all of the EPS. Secondly, there was seldom, if ever, any recognized symptomology of mental illnes of these unfortunate individuals; they had merely come crosswise with the Soviet (read evil) Empire. You may have noted that I am not an employee of the Soviet Empire, nor of the US government and I can, and will post anything I damn well please. Too, you will find nothing in what I wrote that would indicate that I believe that the insanity of the left needs cause them to be "locked up" which is another feature that seperates me and others from the practices of the Soviet Psychiatrists. If your comment is that it "would" be best to lock up dissidents, than that is your problem, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth.

SECOND POST:

Notice you said "Soviet" psychiatrists... the Soviet's were of the left.

And you espouse exactly what Soviet psychiatrists did: the view that those who dissent from the State's views are mentally ill. You're a mental health professional in the best Soviet tradition.

It must be a proud moment for you.

Jonah, Jonah, Jonah, how silly you are. Please find for me the exact quote where I "espouse exactly what the Soviet psychiatrists did?" Or, more likely, are you being a little hysterical in your meanderings? Again Jonah, so that you can understand the difference between what I said and your straw-man argument, I have not ever proposed that anyone who "dissents from the State's views are mentally ill." Rather, what I said is that there are a lot of factors to be looked at and NO WHERE did I suggest locking them up, so I'm not, repeat NOT a "mental health professional in the best Soviet tradition." Rather, I do tend to be a cognitive restructuring adherent and a strong proponent of Reality Therapy. As I have noted, from my perspective the left, in particular the angry left (recognize yourself here do you Jonah?) are not in touch with reality. And this can be documented. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Daily Kos was predicting a win for Kerry, despite the fact that most polls showed Bush on top. Then too, we have the 2000 vote fiasco in which the courts stopped an attempt by Al Gore to overturn the very close vote in Florida. Subsequent counts by a number of independent newspapers confirmed Bush's win, but the [generic] left had problems accepting that. Then, we have the WMD issue touted by the left and by Democrats claiming "Bush Lied" when all the evidence from the previous Democratic Administration, France, Germany and Russia indicated that Saddam did have WMD and Saddam himself did everything he could to underscore that perception.

...delusional thinking that they will change people's minds with their harsh rhetoric.

Your accusation that anyone you perceive as being on the Left is insane and psychotic is not harsh rhetoric. Oh no, of course not...

I did not say "anyone" being on the left. I know a few lefties who are quite supportive of the Administration. Many of whom the left call "traitors" or are otherwise discounted. For example, Senator Joseph Lieberman is quite supportive of the Administration's war on the islamo-fascists (lets call them what they are and not use euphanisims like "terrorists" shall we?). Yet, the majority of the Democratic base is figuratively calling for Liberman's head and are quite openly planning to get someone from their so called "base" to run against him in the next election. Too, if you care to follow the trials and tribulations of the Lt. Governor from the State of Maryland as he prepares to run for the US Senate, one Michael Steel, now, if that isn't harsh rheortic I'll be damned if I know what is. Then we have the ravings as found on the Democratic Underground with language I suspect that none of those commenters would use in front of their grandmothers (not that we don't see some on the far right as well - sadly.) We have the "No blood for oil" meme, the "Bush Lied People Died" meme and oh so very many others. In fact, on meatbrains blog he uses the term liar and calls me a soviet psychiatrist like mental health professional... something you have carried on into your comments on this blog. Harsh rhetoric indeed (one of the resons I suspect 'ole Jonah and Meatbrain are one and the same... they consistently use the same arguments/phraseology) Pot, meet Kettle!

THIRD POST:

Tell you what, rather than attack me, why don't you refute the specifics?

You've already defined that as being impossible. Mr. Mental Health Professional. You claim that anyone who disagrees with you does so only because of their own political proclivities. You would dismiss any refutation on that basis -- just as you always have.

You could try to refute some of the left's specific arguments yourself... but you cannot. That is why you resort to ad hominem attacks of this sort. Everyone who dissents from Administration policy is crazy

Ahh Jonah, you are so amusing. My post is precisely about refuting the left's specific arguments as being out of touch. That they continue to harp on issues that only improve Bush's ratings. Did you notice, Jonah, when the information went out about the NSA intercepts, which seem to be entirely legal by the way (but that is another argument) and the Democrats and the left started talking impeachment, that Bush's approval numbers went UP? Jonah, did you notice that the American Voting Public has a long history of not trusting Democrats with National Security and that even the main stream media have discussed this issue? Yet, they continue to harp on "immediate pull out" and that just won't fly. Jonah, there is an old saw among those that can observe reality: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to be different." Doesn't that really almost perfectly describe the Democrats today? If they keep this up, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's positive numbers went over 65% and the Democrats end up losing a few Senate seats and a number of House seats. One last point Jonah. You wrote: "anyone who disagrees with you does so only because of their own political proclivities. You would dismiss any refutation on that basis -- just as you always have." In point of fact, since you don't seem to be able to digest what you read, my exact quote in the article in question was:

Drummond calls this form of insanity Political Compulsive Disorder. Now, there will be many in the field, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers etc who will not agree that this is a mental disorder at all, but that would be because of their own political proclivities;

I was obviously referring to Drummonds "diagnosis." I said nothing about anyone who disagrees with that are leftists. I said that there would be those who did not think Drummonds diagnosis would be a mental disorder and that might be because of the political proclivities of the person who disagreed with Drummond. What about that didn't you understand since you made such a big deal about me being the one who who said anyone who disagrees with me? I just don't understand you Jonah, you can't seem to see (or perhaps you do see, you just enjoy being contrarian) what is there right in front of you. Oh, and Jonah, I've given you lots and lots of specific examples, you have YET to refute any of them.

-- that's your belief, and now you've put it on record. You can't argue rationally. You HAVE to attack your opponents' character, intelligence, and sanity. That's ALL YOU HAVE.

Actually, I've questioned their judgement, I've noted HIGH intelligence and that it doesn't necessarily translate to good policy and I've noted some psychological symptoms that may explain the process.

Tell us why anyone should trust your so-called professional judgment. given that you are quite willing to subjugate that judgment to your political views -- just like Soviet psychiatrists did.

No one has to trust my professional judgement in this issue, as I said in my opening sentences:

Polipundit's DJ Drummond has maybe hit on a severe form of mental illness. As a Mental Health professional, I'm concerned about what the disorder is, how it begins - that is what is the genesis of the disorder and how can it be treated.

Now, believe it or not Jonah, this is a political blog of the conservative persuasion and I am a conservative. I also happen to be a mental health professional and as such, I have far ranging interests. Further, I absolutely delight in the figurative skewering of my political opponents. Tell me that you don't as a wild eyed lefty. I noticed Jonah, that as Woody has commented you have used multiple fake names, fake IP addresses, and fake or anonymous e-mail addresses to make comments on my site. None of your comments are in the form of discussion or argument, you merely attack and use even more frequent ad hominems than I do; and mine are at least meant to be humorous. Now, I know that my sense of humor may not be yours, or may not be others, but it is mine and if you don't like it. Tough. This is my blog.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you CANNOT DEBATE, you MUST CENSOR. That's your way. That's all you know how to do.

And every time you delete a comment that asks hard questions or challenges your views, you simply prove that point for me.

This is really the cutest part of your diatribe Jonah. What you do with your so called comments is attack and attempt to put your argument (what ever that is) in some kind of rational format. You've failed! If you had read my rules of commenting you would know that this is, as I said above, my blog. I rule here. If you want to make comment use your real name and a real e-mail address, don't be afraid of using your own IP address. That you consistently fail to do so says far more about obsession with this blog then even you probably care to admit. I will "junk" not "delete" any comment that I do not think advances the discussion, and many lefties and liberals and progressives have dropped a bon mot or two here without ever having had to fear having their comments junked; in fact Jonah, I have an uncle, I love him a lot and he is a fine man, one that I admire greatly, but he is a lefty and he disagrees with almost any thing I put here. Yet, he has never had a comment junked, because he argues rationally, I disagree with almost every position he takes, but at least he is rational. You are free to express yourself in a calm rational and oh so polite way, or suffer the consequences of not doing so. You, in your various disguises, have attacked Woody, me, Cao, Duncan Avatar, Seth Richardson and quite a few others. Possibly, though I may be wrong in this, to drive hits to your pitiful little blog. You know, the one with very few visitors, the one with almost zero comments, the one that does far more attack than anything else. Kind of makes me wonder what you are getting out of this besides notoriety. If you respond to this post, do so rationally. If you do not, your comment and any future comment that is like this one will be junked. And a good junk yard is EXACTLY where comments of the type you have been making belong. So, Jonah, cheers, have a great 2006 and may you learn to argue/debate effectively in the coming year.

Hey, Liberals--If you support our troops, show it.

Some messages don't require further explanation, but is this too subtle for liberals to understand?

Found at and a thanks to Denny's in Atlanta

Bush Still President: The Left Cancels Christmas

The left has clamored all year for the removal of President Bush, Karl Rove, V.P. Dick Cheney, and Sec. Donald Rumsfeld. They regularly speculate about the latest and greatest crime by each leader that will surely result in his firing or impeachment. Blogs and editorial pages are full of letters and comments with hopeful claims of misdeeds and demands for removal. But, so far, the batting average of the left is worse than an American League pitcher. All these men whom the left hates are still in power. It must be frustrating to believe yourself so good and so right and never score a run. Here's more of the futility and deceipt of the hopeful left to dispose of President Bush:

"Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last" -- By E&P Staff

Newsweek online noted a “chorus� of impeachment chat, and its Washington reporter, Howard FIneman, declared that Bush opponents are “calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy.

Is this a "vast left-wing conspiracy?" The left continually tries to link Bush with Nixon. John Dean? Is he still alive? Maybe Bush should counter with G. Gordon Liddy. The linkage could be worse. They could compare Bush to the worst president of our era--Jimmy Carter. The article continues:

Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News: "Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., suggested that Mr. Bush's actions could justify impeachment.�

Ooooh... Now, there's a credible source for you! Is he next going to quote Rep. Cynthia al-McKinney, D-Ga.? More.

A smattering of polls (some commissioned by partisan groups) has found considerable, if minority, support for impeachment. But Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll, ...noted that he had been besieged with emails calling for such a survey, but felt it was an "organized" action. ...(Chief Washington Post pollster Richard) Morin complained that he and other pollsters have been the "target of a campaign organized by a Democratic Web site demanding that we ask a question about impeaching Bush in our polls."

As usual, a small radical minority try to falsely pass themselves as being in greater numbers and mainstream.

Now, to shed some light on the "admitted impeachable offense" by the President, in which he authorized wiretaps wiithout court warrants...

"Warrantless' searches not unprecedented" By Charles Hurt, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

In 1978...Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.

Oh, well. At least the left has kept us entertained with their attacks, and their time-consuming efforts have kept them from even thinking about new ideas and winning elections.

Let the Military Fight Terrorists -- Not Jesus

Okay, what's going on here? Are our armed forces being forced to rely on an all-encompassing generic god for their guidance, comfort, and protection--in the name of "tolerance?" Within an article in The Washington Times come these revelations: "'I am a Navy chaplain being fired because I pray in Jesus' name,' said Navy Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt. ...Official military policy allows any sort of prayer, but Lt. Klingenschmitt...cites his training at the Navy Chaplains School in Newport, R.I., where 'they have clipboards and evaluators who evaluate your prayers, and they praise you if you pray just to God,' he said. 'But if you pray in Jesus' name, they counsel you.'"

I honestly want to know if I'm seeing this issue correctly and completely. Excerpts from this next article say more, but I encourage you to read it in its entirity along with other links provided in this entry:

U.S. military bans Christian prayer: Chaplains forbidden to pray in name of Christ

By Rand Green, Editor & Publisher, Perspicacity Press, © 2005 Rand Green Communications

NO PRAYERS in school. No mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. No Christmas decorations on public property. No wearing of crosses by airline pilots on duty. The removal of images of the cross from century-old city seals. There is seemingly no limit to the ways in which those who want to remove all vestiges of religion, and particularly of Christianity, from the public view are seeking to undermine the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Their latest target is the United States military. Chaplains in the military are now being told they cannot mention the name of “Jesus� when they pray, except within the confines of their own churches.

North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones...told of a conversation he had...with a Navy chaplain who was also a Methodist minister. The chaplain had recently given a prayer at a remembrance service for marines killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. “He closed his prayer in the name of Christ Jesus, and about two hours later he got a call from a major in the Marine Corps who told him that in those kind of settings, outside the church, he is not to pray in the name of Jesus Christ.�

It is “an atmosphere of intimidation,� and it is having “a chilling effect,� said Jay Sekulow. “This is political correctness that is just absolutely run amok here. The idea that you would ... censor or silence these pastors because you don’t like the idea that they would pray according to the dictates of their own faith is to me just absurd.�

The current crackdown on prayer in the military, and more specifically in the Air Force, which has just recently issued new restrictive guidelines, is “an overreaction to the situation at the Air Force Academy,� said Mr. Sekulow...

How this started is explained in this article from World Net Daily, which said:

In a move that echoes the recent decision of the U.S. Department of Defense to deny Boy Scouts use of military facilities, the U.S. Air Force Academy is warning Christian cadets to curb their faith.

Officials at the Colorado Springs military college have instituted a new training program, Respecting the Spiritual Values of People, to teach the cadets, 90% of whom are from Protestant or Catholic backgrounds, tolerance toward non-Christians. The program follows an August survey that found complaints of religious bias.

At the Nov. 2 kickoff for the Respecting the Spiritual Values of People program, cadets were advised by head chaplain Michael Whittington to not hold Bible studies in their dormitories, but he was overruled by Commandant Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida.

Another article from World Net Daily provides additional information:

"We support free exercise of religion, but we do not push religion," Rabbi Arnold E. Resnicoff, a Navy veteran, told the paper. He said he was hired earlier this year to assist the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force with writing the guidelines. The new rules come on the heels of criticism of the academy by a pair of congressional Democrats, Reps. Steve Israel of New York and Lois Capps of California.

Why are some offended by certain religious expressions? As examples, a report from a military task force cited "fliers that advertised a screening of The Passion of the Christ at every seat in the dining hall" and "when a chaplain defends saying 'Jesus will be with you, Jesus will save you' with the response 'That's the way we do it here – we promote Jesus.'"

The ACLJ, a concerned Christian group, is compiling a petition to protect military prayer for submission to the President.

Let me recommend that the readers study this issue further to determine for yourselves if the military is falling prey to political correctness and religious intolerance and if this movement should be confronted. Our soldiers are put in harms way every day and they need comfort and peace from the God they worship--not a false idol created by government.

A good answer to this problem might best be this: WWJD?

Yes, Virginia, There Is Freedom In The Middle East

The gentleman to the right is unfortunately deceased. He was born in 1839 and died in 1906 living to the ripe old age of 67; young by today's standards, but pretty old given the times. His name is Francis Pharcellus Church. A name that does not easily roll off the tongue, but one must assume that his parents loved him and though they stuck him with the approbation "Pharcellus." Perhaps they were thinking of Pharsalus, An ancient city of Thessaly in northeast Greece where Julius Caesar decisively defeated Pompey nearby in 48 B.C.

But I digress, Mr. Church was a newsman, an editor and a publisher. He was a lead editorial writer on his brother's newspaper, the New York Sun, and it was in that capacity that in 1897 he wrote his most famous editorial, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."

It is in this context that I reprint part of that editorial:

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light which childhood fills the world would be extinguished."

With abject apologies to Mr. Church, and to Virginia O'Hanlon, a little 8 year old girl who lived on West Ninety-Fith Street in New York, I pen the following:

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest man that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, belief and a steadfast love for freedom can discern the need for freedom; in the Middle East and beyond. Is it real? Ah, Virginia (and the Democratic Party) there is nothing else as real and abiding. No Freedom? Thank God there is Freedom, it lives and will live forever. A thousand years from now, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now freedom will continue to make glad the hearts of mankind.

Freedom is worthwhile, what ever the cost. Vain and vainglorious men will challenge that statement forever, for they cannot abide the lack of power, of power ripped from their hands by people with stout hearts and with a goal of giving to others what they have been given. Today, there are vainglorious men and women in our own land, men and women who care little for the concept, though they say they do. Men and women who call for the return of the men and women in uniform, those with stout hearts who suffer and die and are greviously wounded in the cause. Yet, Virginia, freedom will out! It always does and you can rest assured that in the twilight of history, in the years to come, the world will celebrate those men and women. They will be lauded, and the naysayers will not be remembered at all, save in the small minds of those who place politics over a polity based on freedom.

So Much for Democrats Boosting Troop Morale

This doesn't require explanation from me. I'll let the Democrats explain their Iraqi plan in their own words.

Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq 12/5/2005

(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Maybe saying that the Democrats can win elections "is an idea which is just plain wrong."

Do Flame Wars Contribute To Global Warming, Are Paul and York Environmentally Sound? Tune In Beloved Readers

Flame War! Wikipedia defines flaming as: "The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority.?" And so it is. On the other hand, we at GM's Corner are not about to let challenges go unanswered because to do so merely encourages the scoundrels (was that necessary?... ed... Probably not, but when I have an itch I scratch it... GM)

Yes, by all means let's talk about Mark A. York's qualifications. First, he is as narcissistic as John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry. Mark brags about "endangered fisheries." This of course he means to imply that he is fighting to save, as he once published in the "DailySundial" wild salmon. But fisheries is defined as:

The industry or occupation devoted to the catching, processing, or selling of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic animals.
A place where fish or other aquatic animals are caught.
A fishing business.
A hatchery for fish.
The legal right to fish in specified waters or areas.

Hah, this guy has a bachelors degree in journalism Not biology, if he has any biology at all, it is as a minor and that requirement is only 18 hours. Furthermore, according to his book, he was a GS-4 Technician.... The lowest of the low, the least qualified of the qualified, so low that a degreed person with NO experience was placed over him in his sojourn to the ANWR and that his work was seasonal. Oh, and his lifetime of environmental work... hmmm, according to his own words (he published this remember): he spent 17 years as a construction worker going from "the kid who always got beat up to the terminator." as he protected the others in his fisheries crew from having to deal with the "tough" oil field hands.

Oh, by the way, that's from his book "Against A Strong Current and you can find an excerpt here: Chapter 7. Interesting book by all accounts... NOT!

Actually, this book is sent to an electronic publisher, not accepted for mass publication by an “accepted publisher�, but printed on order by Xlibris Corp a vanity type press and he rails against Woody and me for unsourced material but where we weren’t being humorous, we sourced just fine. Oh, and by the way, Mark has a screed against the vanity press here: July, 07 which when you read it is hilarious; this guy has more bathos than the Marx Brothers. But I digress, here is a "review" of York's Against A Strong Current:

Refreshingly objective and candid nonfiction concerning an issue at the core of our very existence-the environment.

While others turn a blind eye or are swayed by the powers that be seeking to exploit the
planet, the author is a fearless champion for the planet as evidenced also by the conditions he braves on his quest. [emphasis added, but I couldn’t help myself my gawd, this guy is overweening]

At the core of our very existence. Lion's and Tigers and Bears Oh My!!

That review is a little over the top and I have absolutely no doubt that York himself wrote it using a fake ID for the purpose. However there are two other reviews which kind of put York in his place:

Sorry Mark, but this book needs some first aid. I decided to read it after reading the author's comments in a Rick Bass review. It reads like a stump-filled hillside, slipping, tripping, and falling all over the place. There is no sense that it was edited; there are misspellings, frags, story lines smashed to bits. Descriptions of the beautiful areas are adjective-free. There is also a lot of what I sense as " doesn't play well with others." I'll stop here.............

and

this book lacked any sort of editing on the author's part. seeing as the book was published with Print On Demand technology, he had no editor. It seems like he wrote this in a week -- maybe two -- tops, then just handed it in. Couldn't believe the horrible editing.

Editing makes a book hard to read, skimming over all those errors. Sigh.

Hey, i tried to read it. But... it was just so bland and awful - and that's editing aside.

Atta boy York, slammed twice for your hubris. However, our intrepid enviro-warrior doesn't quit, I'll give him that. Take a look at the sites he has been banned at beginning with mine (yet, he continues to come around). Also here (Roger Simon) and here (Done Deal) here (Press Think - 2 times no less). He claimed to be a "pen pal of sorts" with Bill Clinton He was kicked out of Yahoo Groups. Lastly, and then I'll quit because I really hate having a battle of wits with York when it is so obvious that he is half armed; York was banned from my blog for the use of foul language. He claims he didn't use anything stronger than "ass" and, unfortunately I deleted all the really vile language and York knows it. Unfortnately for York, the net is full of his postings and he typically and usually gets frustrated (low frustration tolerance is a hallmark of lefty trolls) and posts something like this [WARNING - strong language follows]

How pathetic do you have to to (sic) fixate on one website to get control for your sick ideas you ignorant shithead. I’ll tell you what Timo if I could get a hold [of] your sick neck it would be broken. Now that’s a promise you fvcking (sic) ad hom (sic) machine. Is it true because the credential-less tim-troll says it? LOL! What a dickhead. You scared little twit.

with all those misspellings this guy purports to have a degree in journalism? "Ass" indeed! "... doesn't play well with others." I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Which brings us to Randy Paul’s entry in the flame wars. Paul advertises his blog as “A Proud Member Of The Reality Based Community.� Oh my! He congratulates York here:

I thought that I would comment on this bizarre post attempting - with the aid of a right-wing think tank no less - (talk about aiming low and still missing your target) to refute claims that global warming is real, but someone beat me to it and did it well.

Paul goes on to say “here’s a little something about their source� and references a coal baron (one would assume) by the name of S. Fred Singer. Only one problem Paul, I didn’t reference Singer in a realistic post or any other post that I could find so I have no idea where you came up with it. And your reference of York’s post was in reference to my post. Paul, you really need to get a real life. Further, if you were really going to debunk the articles I posted on, then by all means do so, but be sure to cite your sources, not your fevered imagination.

OK, let’s go on to Paul’s qualifications in this little bit of byte-drama. Paul has a … are you ready… degree in F….I….L….M! There you have it boys and girls. A degree in film and a good deal of knowledge about south and central America. That’s it. OK, not quite it. In his next sentence he “proves� that Woody is all wet regarding the cost of removing CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels with that paragon of scientific journals (you know, the one that York always champions) THE … again… ready… here it comes…. a NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL…. Well, I’m sure castigated. Gawrsh as Goofy would say!

Well, the editorial does in fact say that removing CO2 would only be “$1.00 per ton� Only one problem, and that is the number of tons produced worldwide in a ten year period from 1994 through 2003 (and we are using those figures because that is what we will have to pay over the next 10 years if we start on Jan. 1, 2006… let’s see… it’s about 465,528.69 MILLION METRIC TONNES at one dollar per ton (and remember, a metric tonne weighs 2, 200 pounds whereas a ton weighs only 2000 pounds, so a metric ton is about 10% larger. Having said that, and even converting metric tones to standard tons we are talking about $512,081,559,000.00 we are talking about 512 billion dollars; you don't think you will feel that in your pocketbook?. Oh, and Paul, York, that figure is from YOUR guys… the ones that you say BELIEVE in GW.

Paul’s parting comment is “If you can't get the truth behind them they just make things up.� Paul, I propose that reducing the cost to only one ton and hiding the total number of tons is making things up.

But you see, radical out in left field lefties like Paul and Mark are all about that; scare, fear mongering and popular pablum; about purporting theory as fact (actually, to the amusement of all and sundry, that fellow York actually said "A theory in science is indeed fact." I'm surprised he graduated with that kind of thinking... all of my professors would have flunked me if I held that view. Then again, I went to a real university. and have more than 60 graduate hours with a 3.75 GPA, I'm a member of a national honor society as well. York on the other hand, maintained that grades of well, mediocre at best ) and their proposed solutions are the only hope of mankind. Well, remember global winter, the next ice age, how silicone implants caused all kinds of medical problems, how electric transmission lines caused cancer and other dire threats from magnetic currents (which is all the rage now, wearing magnets that is), how cell phones would give you brain tumors in a relatively short time… all debunked, but all part of the fear mongering and the cost of finding out that it was fear mongering was staggering. Dow Corning went bankrupt and spent over 3 billion dollars for the privilege, we spent well over 25 billion on powerline research, money that could have helped an awful lot of kids who were hungry, or a lot of treatment for aids victims in Africa or even on honest climate research. Reality based community indeed.

Update: Some of my readers have gone to leave comments at York's site. He banned them! Bwahahahaha!!! Oh Mark, you are such a dweeb!

Dr. Sanity - A Post Worth Reading

I have a friend. She has been my friend for almost a full year now and she is a blogger like myself. Her name is Pat Santy and she writes the blog Dr. Sanity. Dr. Pat is a practicing psychiatrist and is, like me, conservative. She authors a weekly post called the Carnival of the Insanities and has featured a post or two of mine over the last year.

But that is not the reason for this post. The reason for this post is that she won the Watcher's Council weekly "post of the week" with this post: "The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Left" and what a post it is. If my readers don't immediately click on the link and read it, then they aren't as smart as I think they are.

Dr. Sanity (her nom de plume or nom de pixel as it may be) also nominated this post of mine for the non-council post of the week but I didn't win. Who won was Stephen Green's Brilliant essay "The Arm of Decision", and folks, I gotta tell ya, I would have voted for the VodkaPundit myself on this weeks essays and if you don't go read that one, again you are not as smart as I think you are.

So, my deepest thanks to Dr. Sanity for the nomination, but more importantly my deepest congratulations too both authors for absolutely brilliant posts.