Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
Let's get Baker right on this...I'm sure he would suggest we break bread with Osama and Ayman!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Damon: What bothers me the most about the state we're in right now is I don't feel that there's a shared consciousness and a shared sense of sacrifice, and we have these young men and women who are fighting a war in name and our president tells us to go shopping. And I think that more can be asked of us and we need to be participating more for--I think that makes for a more robust democracy. . . .
Question: Hi, my name is Meghan Wright, I'm from Richmond, Va., and I was just--this question is both for Mr. DeNiro and Mr. Damon. I was just wondering, would either of you go to war right now? Not right now, I guess, but--would you go to war if you were asked?
DeNiro: Well that's such a complex question. . . .
Matthews: If you were drafted?
DeNiro: Well, I don't know, that's another thing about the draft and so on, if it ever would come up again. I mean, I was for going to Iraq originally and then I saw, I realized that when you--we went in and we didn't know how to like deal with it once we were there. We just thought they'd all cheer us and we'd be out and then they'd want democracy. We're dealing with--we were just talking about before--the thousands of years old cultures that have all their in-fighting, whatever. I mean, we can't come in unless we have a real plan or strategy and I never thought that.
Damon: There is this great book that just came out about that called "Imperial Life in the Emerald City." That's definitely a book worth reading, just about that. We kind of blundered in there with the best intentions, but nevertheless without a plan. So, but in terms of your question, I agree with Bob that it's a complex question. It would depend on certain situations. I mean, I don't think that it's fair, as I said before that it seems that we have a fighting class in our country that's comprised of people who have to go for either financial reasons or you know, I don't think that that is fair. And if you're going to send people to war, if we all get together and decide we need to go to war, then that needs to be shared by everybody, you know. And if the president has daughters who are of age, then maybe they should go to.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Quick, somebody tell these good Americans...these citizens of the good ol' U.S. of A. that they are confused and in the wrong line....Americans aren't suppose to want the jobs that illegals gladly take! Round em all up and deport them I say..not just those who steal the identity of our citizens! And yes I occasionaly read Tammy Bruce!
The sentiment Rangel expresses here is an unpatriotic one--unpatriotic not
in the sense of being anti-American but in the sense that, as Elie Wiesel has
said, the opposite of love is indifference.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
So I was all smiles when read that Boston University College Republicans created the "Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship" to point out the hypocrisy that "If you give out a white scholarship, it's racist, and if you give out a Hispanic scholarship, it is OK".
Similar to my previous post, the notion that equality comes from treating some as different or special is so fundamentally flawed as a philosophy that it boggles the mind!....don't bother hitting read the rest...there is no more!
Sunday, November 19, 2006
This group, the International Gay & Lesbian Leadership Conference, was I'm sure thrilled to hear Dean say the Democratic Party needs to look beyond its dated goal of getting gays and minorities a place at the table and instead work toward getting them on the ballot. Really? Why? Ignoring the "minority" part, lets just look at the gay part. Are people with gender independent sexual orientation or preferences outside of whatever definition of normal man-women relations are a group that requires representation by one of their own? We already have a constitution and laws that give equal footing to every human....so unless you're inhuman please shut your "I'm special and need special treatment" pie-hole.
I have no idea if Dean is truly just pandering to the crowd before him or if he believes that only someone that engages in a lifestyle that on it's own cannot propagate a species can represent such a group. If that was the case, and you have any intellectual honesty, you must therefore provide member representation for all groups (however you define them) of a similar size within our population. Why should gays only have such status?
It's truly baffling to me that liberals who believe in quotas, affirmative action and calling out any group based on a physical or mental characteristic don't see the conflict with the notion of a society that is blind of color, religion and every other differentiation one can imagine.
What we should do is find those who truly love our country, it's founding principles and laws, to enter public service. We should encourage those to serve only under that distinction. By definition their love of what it means to be American, if true, will guide them to represent all of our citizens equally.
You cannot have it both ways! If you say at least 12% of our federal legislators need to be black because 12% of our population is black, you must therefore believe blacks are different from those who are not. I thought such difference was racist? The idea of picking and choosing things that distinguish various groups creates a divide and continues to highlight the very difference many claim they want to no longer to be the issue.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
The first example of liberalpocrisy was Elton John's suggesting that all religion be banned....I always love examples of intolerance by those who claim to be the victim of intolerance. And of course this obsurdly intollerant notion is downplayed by the press. The Yahoo/Reuters headline of "Elton John wants 'hateful' relgion banned" leads one to believe Elton was targeting only religions that are to him "hateful"....no, he actually suggested banning all of them.
Then it was Nancy "oops, I backed the wrong guy" Pelosi who after some meetings following the embarrasing (for her) vote proclaimed "as we say in church, let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with us. Let the healing begin". I actually laughed when I heard the audio....it sounded forced and unnatural when she said "as we say in church"...what church would that be Nancy? Do you go frequently? Does your God guide your ideals? Oh my.....of course when you look at most press on this you will NOTE that "as we say in church" is conveniently missing...when the fact is, if a Republican had used those words that would be the story!
On this same vein, this next example goes back to the start of Tennessee's Harold Ford Jr's campaign. Ford, a black 36 yr old bachelor (I don't know why that's relavant! :)) frequently, or more accurately nearly always, mentions God, the Lord, church and actually sounds a bit like a preacher. But the hypocrisy in this example isn't Ford's, it's the MSM and other Dems who apparently think his connection to God and his constant declaration of it is just fine....while it's apparently scary and freaky when a conservative invokes the same!
Another good chuckle came from John Edward's apparent do as I say, not as I do as he sent a staffer after a new PlayStation3 at the local Wal-Mart...which is fine..well except that Edwards who is worth tens of millions really relates to the poor and thinks Wal-Mart is bad for the poor...huh? But the laughs came from Wal-Mart putting out a press release nicely skewering Edward's liberalpocrisy! Of course Edwards claims the "young kid" (does he like young boys?) made an error born of ignorance. John at Powerline correctly says "Edwards recited the very silly liberal critique of Wal-Mart as a threat to low-income people. His aide, however, when charged with buying the Senator a PS3, quite reasonably went to Wal-Mart because he knew he would get the best price there. Which is, of course, why Wal-Mart is one of the greatest boons to people of modest means in recent history. Edwards should learn from his aide, not criticize him.".
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Apparently the surrounding context of Kerry's unfortunate sentence "you know education, if you make the most of it, study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart....you can do well...if you don't you get stuck in Iraq" doesn't make his current claim that this was a botched joke about Bush believable at all....not that it would have been anyway.
Amazing the cajones this guy has to not apologies and just like he did in his failed Presidential run he once again thru out that he served and denounces criticism from those who did not. This is so typical of those on the elitist side of the cultural divide in this country....they think if you served in the military, or have Parkinsons, or had a spouse die in the Twin Towers that you are beyond reproach and your motives cannot be questioned.
Kerry was only an honored military man and patriot prior to the day he made those unfounded claims to a Senate committee in 1971 of atrocities committed by fellow soldiers in Vietnam.
If for no other reason than to see Kerry get castigated by the Dems for loosing their shot at a majority in this election I hope we keep control....too funny!
Update1: Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO has a post with more on Kerryism...like how much a joke it was for Kerry to be lecturing students on doing well in the first place, Hanson wrote: How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.
Update2: Black5, who I read regularly and is probably the most widely read military blog calls Kerry an Asshat! boohahahahahahahaha
Udpate3: Victor Davis Hanson nails the continuing Kerry saga.....here's the entire new post:
A man who remembers everything and learns nothing. One of the things I love about America is the spontaneous brilliance and humor that undermine all pretension. No better example was that wonderful banner from our brave and ingenious soldiers in Iraq, blaring:
"HALP US JON CARRY-WE R STUCK [backwards k] HEAR N IRAK."
20 million Americans must have seen it all over the Internet, and nothing sums up the nothingness of Kerryism better than those smiling soldiers. After seeing that, no wonder he's offering deer-in-the headlights apologies. This is a man who remembers everything and learns nothing.Then there was the finger-in-the wind initial Democratic response: their supposedly slight ill breeze suddenly became a Katrina hurricane, and, Presto!, they were all over the airwaves demanding from poor Kerry the apologies that just a few hours ago they thought were not necessary. As for Kerry — how quick the 24-hour metamorphosis from smugness to defiance to purported contriteness! At his earlier blame-the-wing-nuts-and-Rush-Limbaugh press conference, he thought he was a strutting, strong-jawed Napoleonic general leading his troops to rout the evil Bush-Cheney Prussians, and then, alone, suddenly turned around — and Mein Gott in Himmel!! — his Old Guard was heading for the hills.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
If you haven't seen this video of CNN's Blizter trying to defend their action you just must watch (on HotAir) Duncan Hunter do a great job shredding Blizter's words and CNN's very bad decision.
Hugh Hewitt denounced this situation best with this:
We are in a war but elite media and much of the Democratic Party is indifferent to victory in that war, and genuinely incapable of regulating themselves and their behavior so as to maximize the chance of victory. Now a leading network is airing a snuff film from the terrorists, which follows a year in which newspapers have compromised both our electronic surveillance of terrorists communicating with their operatives in the US, and our tracing of terrorist money flows, stories which in both instances undeniably assisted terrorists in eluding capture.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Oh my! There will be a ton of story's condemning Steny for this. Remember how Republican Senator George Allen got skewered in the press for calling a cameraman who was following him around for his opponent "macaca"!........ok, let's do a google search on "slavishly Steny Hoyer"...hmm...at the time of my posting only 103 hits and none on the first page having anything to do with Steny being a racist?
Ok, lets try googling "macaca George Allen"...yikes...416,000 hits of outrage!
Look, I seriously doubt either of these Lilly white politician morons is truly a racist....stupid at times, yes...but the point is the obvious and laughable hypocrisy of how such blunders are treated by the Democrats and the press when the offender is one of their own. YES, I'm calling the press the same as the Dems since surveys have shown 80% or more proclaim to be liberals and vote Democrat....but they only report facts!
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Any bets on whether tax cheat Wesley Snipes gets more jail time than terrorist loving treasonous lawyer Lynne Stewart.....and guess who paid for her defense? Another America-hating leftist, George Soros. And note that a Muslim who did get a sentence of 24 years, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, was a paralegal for Stewart! But I'm sure Stewart loves America!
Free speech as long as long as it's Google approved speech!
Just show me one democrat caught in any level of scandal who takes personal responsibility for it? Not Harry Reid!
I love how Democrats knew not to trust the foreign and domestic pre-Iraq war WMD intelligence, but now believe fully in the National Intelligence Estimate. Check out how well those unbias intelligence folks do in an intelligence test! But don't worry, I'm sure an analysis of the middle east doesn't require one to know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
An issue of separating a father from son? Or an orphaned boy from his homeland? Or is it that some just can't handle the idea of a white adopting a black under any circumstance?
Academia and their attempt at gayification of your children and ignore the right to your beliefs. And a completely sane reaction that I support 100%.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Democrat: The administration has let the trade deficit get to record highs and is killing the economy. Republican: Wow, can you believe what the YouTube guys got? And what about the record Dow? Ya, and did you hear the budget deficit is at a 4 year low?
Republican: Man Harry Reid did alright on that land deal. Democrat: Huh, what are you talking about? Note: just try to find this story covered like it would be if it was a ranking Republican who did this!
Democrat: Cindy says she's a finalist for the Nobel Peace Prize. Republican: Didn't they give the Nobel Peace Prize to that terrorist Arafat?
And for a correct and humorous FAQ on the Dems strategy of late was posted by Dean on www.hughhewitt.com check it out.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
This cartoon says it all. Of course the nutroots say that Bush (or Rove) has arranged for the looney short guy in North Korea to creat some kind (since it's still unclear if this was a nuke) of explosion and draw attention away from Foley-gay-t.
Anything...ANYTHING but what really matters....most things are doing quite well...the real issues that need serious non-stop attention are the war on terror, crazy dictators and securing our borders.
Just in: Will the media make much of a land deal that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid may have not reported correctly? Afterall, doesn't this speak to the ethics of the entire Democratic party?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Well, in this heated political climate where both sides seem to think they're in a death match it's interesting to compare how far either will go. The Foley mess is apparently being played for political gain, and with little regard for reality, by Democrat Patty Wettering. Dean Barnetts post is on the money but he misses the point that since we can be sure a Republican wasn't sitting on the Foley timebomb the Democrat(s) who did, and then let it out in timely fashion for the best political gain, put children at risk just as any Republican who was aware of the IM's did.
You can be sure we will see more generalizations by Democrats about "party of corruption" along with any other distraction that takes focus off the issue or their candidates position on them.
Another example is the Democrats dirty tricks, and law breaking, trying to win against Michael Steele in Maryland. Steele is the most feared kind of opponent for the Democrats who believe their base includes the majority of blacks. The Democrats show what there made of in their efforts to take down Steele. I guess Steele has taken the high road, up to this point, and not engaged in even denouncing the opponents...but he has written a letter that is just brilliant where he takes the gloves off...and in a very classy way. This is the kind of person we want running as Republicans.
The last straw for Steele he makes clear in his letter:
While speaking with two mothers whose sons had died in Iraq, I noticed the ever present Democrat operative filming our conversation. A conversation with parents who have lost a loved one in combat is private in nature and has no place in partisan politics, and certainly not in the smear campaign you have waged against me even before I entered the race for United States Senate. The filming of this conversation demonstrates a callous disregard for families who have lost a loved one and is an indefensible invasion of privacy.
Compare the actions and methods of people like Steele to the Democrats, especially in hotly contested races....and ask yourself which side more closely aligns with your values, your idea of what integrity means.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
I would very quickly mobilize as non-partisan an investigative board as is possible and charge them with contacting the last 5 yrs (or maybe even more) worth of Congressional pages looking for any inappropriate contact or communication with Senate and House members, or their staff, from both parties.
Since Foley's transgression was leaked without due diligence, judge or juror we just do the same for anything the current and former pages offer up...ya baby!
Update: click Read the rest... to see the latest on the Folye mess!
When this page program investigation was announced you could even profile whose pages you focus on by watching who freaks out. And apparently prior to the Foley email/IM scandal it was well known in D.C. (at least to insiders) that Foley was gay. So use the inside information the insiders have on the rest of the deviants and focus more closely on their pages as well.
This would be the only way to turn this fiasco into an across the board cleansing the morally devoid members and applying a look at behavior of the entire D.C. power structure puts both parties on equal notice and scrutiny.
Such a radical and bold approach is of course a pipe dream, but it would make for an entertaining political news cycle and also rid our capital of some defective grey matter.
Update: Taranto has a great post on this Foley business, see the 2nd item starting with 'Open Secrets'. From his post, an editorial in the WSJ asked:
What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.
But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior
Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one? . . .
Yes, Mr. Hastert and his staff should have done more to quarantine Mr. Foley from male pages after the first email came to light. But if that's the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.
Taranto later in his post examins Foley's attorney Roth statement about Foley being molested himself as a boy, Taranto writes:
We're not sure whether to credit the molested-by-a-priest story, which sounds like an excuse. (In fact, even if it explains Foley's interest in boys, it in no way exonerates him for acting on those impulses.) But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is true. What are we to make of it? Roth seems to be implying that Foley's interest in boys is the result of the trauma of having been molested when he was a boy. If so, does this mean that some homosexuals are made rather than born? Or are we to believe that Foley was born gay and would be having "normal" relationships with adult men had he not encountered the pulpitarian pervert?
What all this suggests to us is that human sexuality is vastly more complicated than either traditional morality or liberal dogma will allow.
It would be interesting to pose some of these questions to the liberals!
While Foley should be shot (metaphorically of course) as should anybody who knew and didn't do the appropriate and timely thing. It's not clear yet what anybody knew, when they knew it and if they didn't do the right thing. But knowing the facts doesn't stop the media and Democrats from asking for other resignations! It's really laughable and amazing someone would, with a straight face, ask for other resignations at this point.
But you see, those who immediately act aghast over this incident know their moronic political base. They now believe their important political base are the "fake but true" leftist who need no proof that the entire Republican membership is morally and ethically bankrupt....they just know it to be so...they want it to be so...they promote that it is so!
Take today's Washington Times editorial staff's Op/Ed asking for Speaker Hastert's resignation...because they know he knew enough long ago to out Foley. Note the opening sentence of this piece: "a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress". The bias and guilt by association, the implied group hypocrisy is laid out front and center.
The party that does a wonderful acting job of being shocked and then calls for heads to roll with fanfare and a pompous attitude does so exposing their own hypocrisy. In today's Investors Business Daily the editorial staff makes the case for Dems trying to capitalize on a good sex scandal in two faced fashion. Apparently heads needn't role when the zippers are coming down on Democrat!
Update: And the castigating (word of the day) is coming from both sides of the isle and the blogsphere.....but BE VERY AFRAID, if the electorate loses site of the real issues and those running for office not emobroiled in scandal, well as Hugh Hewitt puts his fear: These elections could put Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's chair --third in line for the presidency--along with John Murtha as Majority Leader, John Conyers at the head of Judiciary and Charles Rangell (and William "The Freezer" Jefferson) at the top of Ways and Means. Given the stakes for this country's safety and security not to mention its economy, I think the center-right would be well served by a lot less posturing and a lot more digging from its new media members.
Monday, October 02, 2006
While the TV tease spots and media headlines label Bob's latest book (State of Denial) with such things as "Bush bomb shell", it appears this is merely a "Potpourri-of-Beltway-Gossip-Posing-as-a-Book". Which is how Mario Loyola at the NRO put it. See Mario's post on how Bob misleads to make the case that Bush misleads!
And then of course there is the timing of Woodward's anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-anyone still working in the Bush administration book. And apparently Bob didn't do very well with wimpy old Matt Lauer and wouldn't come out and directly say Bush lied or misled? What? And he admits that the book was timed to influence the November elections? If this description of Woodward's visit to the NBC puff piece morning show is accurate the media should be hammering Woodward in every appearance he makes going forward...Not likely!
Woodward is not an impressive thinker...his bias and timing are clear. It's about loyalty to the bias denying liberal media and about making a buck. There's no reason to believe Woodward wouldn't be complicit with the publishers of his book to maximize their return and also to influence an election. And the same can be said for the release of another book, a biography of Colin Powell. It's interesting how nearly every book covering an administration insider where the message is the insider was right, and the boss was wrong...was fired by the boss before making those claims. That's of course not condemning in itself..just interesting.
I find it fascinating how many fired, asked to resign, or pushed out ex-administration employees now claim they had always been on the other side of every situation we can now decide on more clearly that their in the review mirror.
All this Bush bashing will be constant up to the November 6th elections....plus you will likely see the Foley email mess get labeled as either a cover up or as evidence that the entire Republican party are deviants. Anything but the issues! God forbid a candidate would have to defend, or even articulate, their positions on the issues.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
It's likely Republican hacks will also play the same game...I'm not a political analyst so I don't know if history shows that you must play back with dirty tricks or if sticking to the high road is a winning strategy....but it's clear this election season is going to be pathetic.
When you Google search on Allen and the "n-word" you find lots of mainstream and national media outlets covering the story without questioning its validity. Now for comparison see how much national press is covering Keith Ellison's connection to the Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism as demonstrated by his associations, words from his mouth and writings.
Is Ellison's questionable ideology from 30 years ago and on hearsay and little evidence? Ah, no....check the link above! While Ellison admits the association with Farrakhan's organization the information any of you can find suggests his version of things is a lie. The media, and Democrat party seems to be willing to give any of their members a pass on what they would crucify those on the right for.
But decide for yourself. Ellison, by the evidence, had offensive attitudes and questionable judgment as a 30 yr old husband and father...not as a teenager as in the case of Allen's claimed racial transgression. Can a 30 yr who gives speeches and writes to promote a racist and divisive ideology transform to someone who should be in Congress just 10 years later?
I'm not saying Ellison is now a racist. I am saying the evidence says he definitively was. He very well could have made a transformation around 30 yrs of age...but I believe by that time in your life the big issues and your core beliefs are well entrenched...if they're not, then your judgement is highly questionable and your too easily influenced by others.
The hypocrisy on the left, and in the media, is as strong as ever....do as I say not as I do, is once again the unspoken credo.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
What a joke....for those of you who were in your teens or twenties in the 1970's as was Senator Allen and myself you have to laugh at the idea of anyone having never used the n-word. First, Allen denies the claims made by, I believe, two people. Second in the 70's I drank illegally, I smoked a joint or two, I used the n-word and every other racial epithet in existence with my friends. I would venture to say if you were in that age group in the 70's and never used a racial epithet at all we should question your normality.
So, can a non-black use the n-word ever, in any context, where they're not being racist? I find it extremely hypocritical that anybody in this day and age thinks the n-word has some special status. If anything the black community, the entertainment community in particular, having used the word incessantly and affectionately have made the word no longer verboten . The arrogance of blacks who think it's ok and appropriate for them but not for non-blacks is divisive.
My extended family is Italian (northern, Sicilian and from Palermo) and yet I have never heard anyone call each other a "wop". Do people with Irish descent call each other a "mick", Germans a "kraut", and so on?
Forgetting the stupidity of the racial slur issue, if Allen is found to actually have done things to indicate he really hated blacks well then that might be an issue. But more likely he, like me, used racial slurs in spirited youth and chemical induced fun...tacky and tasteless but victimless nonetheless.
Will the Democrats strategy that is emerging this political season work. They apparently aren't comfortable going up against anybody on issues and ideas. Instead the focus is Bush or personal attacks. I have to laugh at the anti-Arnold ads running in California. The ad is to get you to vote for anyone other than Arnold and you are to do this because you see over and over Arnold on video standing with the Bush's saying "elect George W. Bush". They sprinkle in the Iraq war and gas prices too. So do anything to attach the other guy/gal to Bush....or try to find, or invent, a skeleton in the closet.
Allen's opponents have also created an issue claiming that his grandmother is in fact a Jew and that Allen has been hiding this fact....amazing! Can you imagine if these tactics were used by Republicans...it would be a media feeding frenzy and the charges of a morally bankrupt political party would be the talking point by Democrat leadership.
Not that Republicans don't also partake in this BS...but it's much more prevalent in the Democrat playbook. It's also apparent that the Democrats know they get the DUMBASS vote. How do I know this? How else can you explain the idiotic stuff with Senator Allen? A dumbass will in fact think having the used the n-word sometime in your life is a reason to vote for the other guy. A dumbass will believe Allen was trying to hide Jewish heritage. But the most critical evidence that the Democrats know their voting base is from the gutter and includes a large amount of illegal aliens or voter fraud is that they oppose simply asking voters to show a photo ID before voting. They think it will intimidate people and scare them from the polls! I guess that's why those people don't get loans, use checks to purchase things, get a job (you must show ID to have an I-9 form properly done, etc....all because presenting a photo ID is intimidating. See what I mean...they're going for the people who think presenting a photo ID is scary...those are great voters!
Update: Taranto of the WSJ weighs in comments on the press bias in the reporting on the 'Swiftboating' of Senator Allen saying "That the press reported the Swift Boat story largely as a smear campaign against Kerry whereas it is treating the Allen charges as legitimate and serious suggests a strong partisan bias at work. "
Monday, September 25, 2006
He went into a nearly spitting and finger pointing rant about this question was a "conservative hit job" and that he did more than anybody else to get Bin Laden. He basically just made stuff up...which he is so adept at doing without scrutiny by most of the press.
Can you imagine if Bush had this kind of demeanor with a reporter who asked a mildly tough (and I'll explain why it's only a mildly tough question later) question and then proceeded to say things like "all the Democrats said this" or "all of the military told me that"....within minutes all media outlets would be doing Google and Lexisnexis searches. You would have to do a lot of searching because when you hear it you're saying to yourself...really, that happened?...hmm...lets get confirmation. So, of course, you can't find a partisan chorus of Republicans that complained that Clinton was obsessed with getting Bin Laden...will the main stream media point out this complete fabrication and parallel universe that Clinton apparently lives in? Of course not.
This was as undignified and as poor an interaction as I could imagine from an ex or sitting President as you can imagine. If you hadn't already seen it, see it on Hotair's video blog...the video and his fabrication are laid out plane as day.
Clinton had 8 years of mostly slobbering smitten press questions (with the exception of the Monica issue) during his time in office...and more constant love since leaving office....One little question and he has no class, no skill to deflect it! He could have simply said "you know, I wish I did more, I wish we had got him...but we didn't...it's not an easy thing and I'm sure the current administration would like to have gotten him by now as well"....then if the interviewer keeps pressing they look unreasonable...asked and answered. That's why this was a mild hardball and could have been easily handled.
And apparently Clinton, like many nutroots, blame Bush for his 8 months leading up to 9/11 and in no way Clinton for his 8 years prior to Bush. I guess Clinton was fighting terror in a big way without us knowing, handed Bush terrorism under control on a platter and Bush messed it up in his first 8 months. Clinton was just on the verge of killing off terrorism as we now know it when he had to leave office....it was Bush who blew it.
Clinton can't handle even an occasional tough question....Bush handles questions tougher than this everyday from the entire press core.....Clinton only has to only handle it from FoxNews (the Bush media outlet).
Update: Before someone sends me examples of GOP complaints about Clinton's cruise missile assault on an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan....keep in mind they were complaining he timed that attack to deflect the impeachment vote that was to happen the next day...it was a question of was he wagging the dog.
Update 2: From Dick Morris who was close to Clinton during the time he could have nailed Bin Laden and could have taken the 1993 attack on the WTC more seriously.
So, what the hell am I rambling about? Senator McCain has come out very strongly on identifying by legislation specific interrogation techniques for detainees (terrorist suspects) that are off limits and in fact would constitute a crime. McCain is a war hero in my book...his many years as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam give him that label...no doubt. But I believe his experience actually clouds his judgment on this subject of war time interrogations and that he should recuse himself from playing a role in this legislation. Just as a civil judge who had sued a home remodel contractor should recuse themselves from overseeing such a suits in their courtroom.
McCain's experience alone doesn't make him a definitive source of what interrogation techniques work....or even what's moral, or the "high ground". While I believe physical mutilation or any technique that could result in death should be off limits I wouldn't automatically conclude either happening is evidence of a crime. Plenty of techniques that should be employed to make sure no Jihad loving American hating freak has a shot at my wife, kids, family and friends might in fact cause someone with say a heart condition to die. And if a detainee chooses to physically fight our guards or interrogators well they make suffer permanent physical injury......to F'ing bad.
McCain and others say that taking the "high ground" on this issue will in fact save American military lives when they are faced with being a prisoner of war? I yelled at the radio in my truck when I heard that for the first time....are you kidding me! I know of no enemy of the U.S., whether a sovereign state or a stateless terrorist group like Al-Qaeda, that in my wildest dreams would consider the Geneva Conventions, article 3 of the same, or that the U.S. took a humanitarian approach to prisoner interrogations when they're standing there deciding what to do to their American captive! In fact, I'm sure that they laugh at our public debate on this topic and in spite of the uproar in parts of the middle east over Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo those who put themselves in a position to be captured are none to scared of interrogators.
The proposed legislation handcuffs interrogators and will in many cases make them useless as the fear of prosecution or law suits has them playing catch with a nerf football with their prisoners.
I agree with Paul over at Powerline who called McCain (among others) the "terrorist rights wing of the Republican party".
I suspect some of the support for this "high ground" comes from the post 9/11 trend mostly on the part of Liberals to embrace Internationalsim. The idea that we brought on the hatred, that we turned normal life loving peoples into those willing to die to kill us...that actually love the idea of killing us...killing innocent civilians...not military or govt targets but a bus full of school children for example. I suppose those willing to believe such an absurd thing explain how people with a trainload of evidence to the contrary are willing to believe that our government (and our President) could be a part of a conspiracy responsible for 9/11.
For some reason these people ignore the terrorists acts by Islamic/Muslim based groups all over the world to people who can't even be said to be complicit with the U.S., and then there is also the Muslim on Muslim terrorism and murder in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. And lastly the fact that cartoons or repeating a 13th century quote that are critical of Muhammad result in violence and the threat of violence and death. Yes, all this anger and willingness to cut off someone's head can clearly be found rooted in something America has done!
Thankfully those of you who think this way are apathetic. If you believe there was even the slightest chance Bush was behind 9/11 or that his actions since have actually caused the creation of thousands of new terrorists you should be advocating physical force to oust Bush and take over the government! I would be doing everything I could to confirm my suspicions and then act on it if it was me.
Friday, September 22, 2006
The leftists and blind Bush haters among us only hear the anti-Bush message in what Chavez says....those of us who don't hate Bush (or love him) heard what the world heard. If what Chavez and Ack-my-lunch-what-a-wack-job said when they had their time at the UN podium didn't get you pissed off as an American...well then, you're not a patriotic American. Worse if you agreed with him (as many leftist in our country do) you're a traitor!
If you're a Chavez aligned traitor you're a spineless one unless you advocate using force to overthrow the US government....you could also choose to leave our country...but that would make you a spineless traitor as well....I prefer you do the later.
Both of these pukes rambled on....but this portion of Chavez's speech had a clear meaning to anyone being honest:
The "pretensions" of "the American empire" threaten "the survival" of mankind. The world must "halt this threat." The American president talks "as if he owned the world" and leads a "world dictatorship" that must not be allowed to "be consolidated." Bush will spend "the rest of [his] days as a nightmare." The U.S. government is "imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal," a "hypocritical" empire that only pretends to mourn the deaths of innocents. But not only the Mideast will rise. "People of the South," "oppressed" by America, must "strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle."
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Well now....so let me get this straight (pun intended)...previously these companies, given they're big, had policies about ones general attitude towards others (coworkers and customers) at the workplace...but "others" previously apparently excluded gays (and previously mentioned sexual deviants). They weren't excluded because these policies said they were excluded....but because, you see, there are people with certain attributes that everyone knows we don't apply normal human rules to unless they're specifically called out!
So, with no influence from activist groups (ya right) these companies in the above mentioned fruitcake...ah, I mean corporate equality index...have called out those you would normally not give equal treatment to.
One big problem.....you see these new policies don't mention the other people all of us know we don't really need to treat equally (like, liberals, people who sleep with dogs, people with piercings you're forced to look at when talking to them, people with poor hygiene, terrorists, pedophiles, etc.) so how do we know who the gays (and others I don't want to mention) are among us so that we treat them special? I mean since they are called out in the policies unlike people with blue eyes, or people who are happily married, or people who are Catholic...well these people called out specifically in the policies..we really need to treat these folks special...cause, well...they really are special aren't they?
I say give them what they want....make themm wear visible identification that they are special, and then we will all know who we need to treat special!
Union workers, I would guess, assume that their union and it's representatives spend the vast majority of their time and money on worker salary negotiation, worker benefits management, worker retirement management, worker education programs, and a bunch of other things focused on the worker. But, it turns out the majority of union funds go to political action aligned with the cultural left.....almost none of it can be shown to be in direct support of the union worker. In fact, union bosses seem to have a passion for giving to those whose focus is raising taxes....a proven method of curbing economic growth and thus hurting labor.
The new disclosures show how thousands of union officers and employees devote between 50% and 90% of their time on political activities and lobbying. And of course you find unjustly high salaries, dubious spending and purchasing by the union at non-union retailers....at least union management knows where you get a bargain!
Read the entire piece by clicking "Read the rest..."
Fun Union Facts -- September 19, 2006; Page A20
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney boasted recently that the union consortium intended to pour millions of dollars into this year's Congressional elections -- hardly a shocker. What is news is that this year, for the first time, rank-and-file union members are getting a look at precisely how much of their mandatory dues money is going to fund Mr. Sweeney's political causes, and plenty of other interesting details as well.
This month marks the deadline for the last of the nation's unions to file newly expanded disclosure reports, known as LM-2 forms. LM-2s have been around a long time, though until Labor Secretary Elaine Chao issued a rule requiring an expanded form in 2004, unions got away with providing the skimpiest details. This proved useful to union bosses who wanted to mask their political spending, or in some cases their corruption.
They are now being dragged into the sunshine. Whereas unions used to lump millions of dollars of disbursements into such vague categories as "sundry expenses," the new regime requires them to provide a detailed breakdown of who or what received union money: issue advocacy groups, political consultants, polling outfits, even hotels at which their members stayed.
Hard-working union members deserve to know, for example, that of the AFL-CIO's $82 million in discretionary disbursements from July 2004 to June 2005, only 36% went to representing members in labor negotiations -- which is what unions were created to do. A whopping $49 million, or 60% of its budget, instead went to political activities and lobbying, while another $2.4 million went to contributions, gifts and grants. The National Education Association was even more skewed toward politics, spending only 33% of its $143 million discretionary budget on improving its members' lots.
By our calculations based on the filings, the AFL-CIO spent at least $2.7 million alone on T-shirts, flyers, telephone calls, Web site hosting, and other support for 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry. Groups that received AFL-CIO money included Citizens for Tax Justice, an organization devoted to higher tax rates; the Economic Policy Institute, a think-tank that campaigns against Social Security privatization and tax cuts; and the Alliance for Justice, a ferocious opponent of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees.
Dues-paying workers of the world might want to ask: Why is Mr. Sweeney spending more of their money trying to raise taxes, or fighting for the cultural left, than he is on collective bargaining?
The IRS may also want to inspect these forms. That's because, prior to the new LM-2 disclosure rules, at least a dozen large unions had told the tax agency that they spent nothing on politics. The National Education Association's 2004 tax return, for instance, left blank the line for "direct or indirect political expenditures." Yet according to its LM-2, the NEA spent $25 million on such activities from September 2004 to August 2005. Eliot Spitzer could sure have fun with that one -- if he didn't have the NEA's endorsement.
The forms also offer a glimpse at union chief salaries. At least three union heads took home more than a million dollars in compensation in their last fiscal year -- though two were admittedly the heads of the NFL and NBA players unions. The third-fattest union cat was Martin Maddaloni, the chief of the Plumbers and Pipefitters, who took home $1.3 million last year. The Plumbers' "director of training" -- a fellow named George Bliss -- somehow managed to make $456,644 in 2005. Now we know why plumbers are so expensive: They have to make enough to pay the dues that keep their union reps in Armani.
The LM-2 forms show that some 1,015 paid union officers and employees devoted more than 90% of their time to political activities. Combined, these folks took home compensation worth nearly $53 million. Some 1,755 union personnel spent at least 50% of their time on political activities and lobbying.
As for financial management, let's just say some of these union chiefs are having fun in their jobs. United Auto Workers Local 14 reported it spent $67,000 at an amusement park. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers spent $124,000 at a hotel resort. And the Plumbers forked over $225,000 on Nascar advertising.
A couple of other fun facts: Of the 100 highest paid union executives, 93% are men. We hope some class-action lawyer isn't looking to sue for gender discrimination. And, believe it or not, unions report that they spent $624,000 at largely non-unionized big box retailers across the country, including Target, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Costco and K-Mart. They apparently know a low price when they see one.
When Secretary Chao proposed the new rules, unions were furious and came close to getting them blocked on Capitol Hill, and in court. Mr. Sweeney, the AFL-CIO chief, was quoted as saying the rule "will cost union members an estimated billion dollars a year," and that the average union would have to spend $1.2 million. The actual cost of AFL-CIO compliance turned out to be $54,000, so Mr. Sweeney was only off by 96%.
Unions should have the right to spend whatever they want on politics, and we've defended that right against McCain-Feingold and other campaign-finance limits. At the same time, however, union members who don't like the way their coerced dues are spent have the right under the Supreme Court's Beck decision to ask for the political and grant portion of that money back. May these illuminating LM-2 disclosures be spread far and wide.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
But, I suspect, there will be no such movement within the Muslim world and the reaction to Pope Benedict XVI speaking of a dialogue between a Byzantine Emperor and a Persian. The Emperor conveyed that Muhammad's spreading faith through violence is something unreasonable. The Pope, in his speech in Germany this week, merely quoted a conversation between two men that took place in the year 1391. The entire speech wasn't focused on this criticism of Muhammad, but to the Muslim world it might as well have been.
The inflammatory (literally) reaction to the Pope's speech is interesting since it merely comes from quoting someone who was just critical of Muhammad 600 years ago. The Pope was speaking to the need for genuine dialogue among cultures and religion...a plea for peaceful coexistence. But the Muslim leaders who are stirring the fire among their followers are of course not telling their sheep of the context of the "supposed" slam against Islam.
Just read the reactions from various countries and their Muslim talking heads....then look at the Pope's speech. The best reaction, one that shows the backward logic and that criticism of the Muslim world is properly placed was from Pakistan's Foreign Ministry who said "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence." WHAT?
Apparently the entire Muslim world is like one of those guys who suddenly looses it on our congested American roads and succumbs to road range and gets violent...the entire Muslim world! Can a group who is so brain washed, so prone to violence from simply being critical of their prophet peacefully coexist with us? I'm beginning to wonder!
Upate (9/18): Islamic reaction to the Pope's message that violence shouldn't be part of the worlds religions trying to co-exist was predictable. They of course say the Pope was instead saying that Mohammed and Islam are about violence...and so to make their case they prove the fake Pope message correct by threatening death and violence. So, how many Catholics will threaten to kill, or actually kill, because Muslim's all over the world burned the Pope in effigy? Ah, I would guess ZERO. Now imagine even one demonstration where Mohammed is burned in effigy.
Update (9/19): The Muslim Cleric who organized the Danish Embassy cartoon protest calling to 'Behead Those Who Insult Islam' weighs in and is demanding the Pope be executed....you gotta love those peace loving Muslims!
Friday, September 15, 2006
Judge Rules You Can't Ask Voters To Prove Their Identity! And I love Wizbang's idea on how to point out just how stupid this is!
Liberal Lesbian Tells Mindless America Who Watches TV Midday That "radical" Christians in America are just as much of a threat as the followers of radical Islam who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York's Twin Towers!!!! No other commentary needed!
Stupid #1: Harvard invites former President of Iran to speak at the Kennedy School of Government. Stupid #2: Audience sits silently as Khatami justifies the death penalty for gays. That same audience would jeer loudly if Bush spoke about say military tribunals for terrorists caught on foreign soil!
Minnesota Democrats give primary win to less than honest Muslim and Nation Of Islam follower. His claims he didn't know the NOI was anti-Semitic are laughable.
Stupid #1: That the UN still gets funds from the U.S. and that anybody thinks they do ANY good at all. Stupid #2: That Kofi Annan would have any reason to visit Castro.
Stupid #1: That anybody, U.S. citizens, the EU, or anybody else thinks that terrorists and insurgents are covered by the Geneva Conventions. Those who are not fighting under the flag of any country or wearing the uniform of any country's military and are, therefore, not shielded by the Geneva Convention! Stupid #2: That Colin Powell, McCain and others feel if we don't feel these scum by the GConventions that it will make it worse for our solders! WHAT? Oh, so instead of the Islamic fascists torturing a solder before cutting his head off, they'll just go straight to the decapitation IF ONLY the U.S. give their kind Geneva Conventions rights! The time for worrying about those in countries who populace supports evil acts towards Americans think has long past. Now is the time for us to crush and instill fear in those that will supposedly just as easily be a peace loving Muslim or be a bomb-belt wearing terrorist.....not worry about whether they think we are being moral hypocrites.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
So here's your plan, first get Nobel Laureates to join your organization and help...shows that smart thoughtful people who you assume do their homework believe in your cause....their accomplishments give credibility to their position on your cause. Second get an actor who has played a TV doctor, a demon killer, a con man and a secret agent in the movies. This will......(sound of a record being stopped by hand with that terrible scratching noise of the stylus dragging across multiple groves in the vinyl)....WHAT?
Look, celebrity endorsement of products, your clothing line, your hair products...in fact I suspect they really know their hair products, is great. But when you have George Clooney speak to the UN (let alone the Security Council) about an issue in a country he visited for days or weeks...an issue he's not a known expert on, an issue involving political turmoil, dictatorial leaders, tribal relations, genocide, etc.....you loose every intelligent person questioning the legitimacy of your issue. Everything they say can be correct and heartfelt...but generally we don't want to hear such things from self important pseudo intellectuals who think because the celebrity adoring public and paparazzi fawn over them that they suddenly have enlightened knowledge on nearly any topic.
Darfur is messed up and I'm sure has been inappropriately ignored by those who claim to care for the human condition around the world...but in my opinion there's no better way to turn powerful people away from your issue than to have a celebrity like George Clooney lecture them on it.