Saturday, September 30, 2006

Nation of Islam for Congress

With what appears to be a bogus smear campaign against Senator Allen for use of the off limits to everyone but blacks "n" word, Democrat operatives are nonetheless finding an all too willing press to be complicit in this dirty politics that are about anything but the issues.

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 as I say not as I do, is once again the unspoken credo.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Fake Senator Allen Photo?

You be the judge! With the recent revelation promoted by Allen's Democrat challenger, and the Democrat bedfellow Media, that Allen is a slave loving racist makes this photo most certainly a fake! Allen wouldn't be caught dead so close to fellow senators of color!

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 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

Revisionist Excuses

I find it embarrassing that former President Bill Clinton was so easily rattled by even a mild hardball question. When Fox News (a Republican propaganda media machine controlled by Bush according to liberals) reporter Chris Wallace asked the question "Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?" Clinton lost presidential composer.

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''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 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 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.

Terrorists Rights

I always find it interesting when people will accept a position on a topic as absolutely correct when the topic has no absolutes (it's a matter of opinion) or obtaining such proof requires data that isn't available. When dealing with the human mind and its response to stimulus there is no absolutes and one only achieves a high probability of predicting response with a very very high sample size. You can't just apply straight statistics to human reaction. Every aspect of a persons history, life experience, personality and recent personal relations and events will effect their perceptions at any given time and so predictability is dubious.

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 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 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

If you agree with Chavez you're a traitor

Chavez's address to the UN called the US (not just Bush) an enemy of the world and was as Peggy Noonan, more eloquently than I puts it, a call to arms against us.

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 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."

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Get your rainbow badges!

If you work for a major U.S. company you better check the Corporate Equality Index on the gay activists Human Rights Campaign Foundation website. You see, a fair number of companies have put in place policies that, for example, prohibit discrimination and/or call for respect of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

Well 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 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 Financial Transparency Outrage?

A fascinating piece in today's WSJ summarizes some interesting facts about the spending habits of America's labor unions. New requirements have resulted in more financial transparency for these unions and what has been disclosed should cause outrage in the membership of these unions. However, I suspect very few working stiff union types get the WSJ and I don't have much faith that the MSM will make noise over what this new disclosures of union spending shows.

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 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

Sticks and Stones; Muslims need to clean house

The Muslim, or Islamic, or Arab world.....Whichever you want to label it...has some house cleaning to do. Why? Well, firstly because they have Bin Laden and various junior Bin Ladens around the world trying to recruit western looking Jihadists, and they encourage their new and old Jihadists to kill my kids, your kids, your wife, your husband, your way of life. The theory, and this is just a theory, is that most of the Muslim world loves their life and family more than the idea of killing yours..again this is just a theory. If this is true then they have some renouncing, some cleansing, some house cleaning to do.

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 gotta love those peace loving Muslims!

Friday, September 15, 2006

Stupid Human Tricks of the far!

Well, there seems to be plenty of stupidity to go around this week. Here's a few of my favorite stupid human tricks that made there way into the news this week:

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

How not to be taken seriously

Have an important cause, issue or crisis? Want the attention from international government officials? Have an opportunity to address the UN Security Council and make your case for help from the international community?

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 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 issue he's not a known expert on, an issue involving political turmoil, dictatorial leaders, tribal relations, genocide, 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.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Left is, as Left does

A new CNN pole says basically there is no change in those who blame Bush (and/or Clinton) for the 9/11 attacks since 2004...but CNN chooses the Bush bashing headline "More Americans blame Bush for 9/11". In fact the poll shows the number of people who blame Bush, a little to a great deal, for the 9/11 attacks only differs by 2% from those who also blame Clinton.

But a 1-2% change in this stupid poll doesn't make a story...what should make a story is that an attack in the planning for many years, and that Islamic fascists were carrying out terrorists acts for a good decade prior to 9/11/01...and yet some think it's all Bush's fault that roughly 6 months into office this attack happens?

How stupid are these people? Their dislike of a Republican who also believes in God (oh my) is so great that all logic, reason and a grasp of the facts escapes them. As PowerlineBlog points out, the left (no longer just the angry left) blames everything on Bush that couldn't even possibly be his fault....amazing.

I'm not in love with Bush.....but on the left there is a deranged hatred that hurts us as a whole.

Duplicity in this derangement is those media outlets that attempt to make news instead of "report, you decide". The enlightened intellectuals in the media no longer think you're capable of deciding what anything means (GWOT, Global Warming, civil rights, etc.) at CNN they will just tell you what it means. The Riehl World View said this about the CNN pole:
"if you take into account the polls margin of error (3%) and the fact that they used a partial sample in 2001 (MOE 4.5%) and, for some reason, have no results for Clinton in 2002 ... the fact is, there is no significant difference between the numbers for Bush and Clinton, except for right after 9/11, when Clinton stood at 45% to 40% for Bush.
Now, look at the top three categories, which would mean any blame at all. Clinton polls 62%, Bush 64% in a poll with a 3.5% margin of error = no significant difference."

The Arab Problem

As we slip past the 5th anniversary of our generations Pearl Harbor I wonder if it's appropriate to feel that our efforts to thwart another terrorist attack on our soil is working? After all dates and symbolism seem to be important to the Islamic scum who desire our demise. Would they not have done great harm to our sense of safety to even mount a small attack on any anniversary up to this point? If you believe they are fearful that the symbolism of another attack on a 9/11 anniversary would re-awaken the sleeping giant with a vengeance not seen before, think again. There not that smart, nor do they understand our kind of patriotism.

I'm not suggesting we are employing all the best tactics in fighting this war...some are in fact laughable. And to not TARGET MUSLIMs in police work and intelligence work of this fight is stupid and dangerous.

What is worrisome is the attitude in the overall Arab world where one would assume that all are not extremist and some not even Muslim. A great blog on Iraq and the Arab world, by two brothers who should know since they're blogging out of Baghdad is Iraq The Model. One of the brothers, Mohammed Fadhil, has a piece to this point called Blaming the Victim in today's WSJ. Fadhil points out the Arab medias focus on our response to 9/11 as opposed to the act itself. To ignore the provocation is dishonest but also speaks to the attitude that America deserved this. Fadhil also shares my belief as he answers the question on whether the West can appease these ruler and clerics by our changing our strategy:

I don't think so. Those dictators and extremists always seek to keep a state of low-level confrontation and to keep the possibility for war open because their dominance over their people depends on their ability to create enemies and convince their people that those enemies are whom hatred and anger must be directed at.

A poll just published on Jihad TV's (Al Jazeera) website further illustrates the Arab attitude. I found this on but you can see the original page of the terrorist medias poll on a Google translation page. My pal, Glock26, points out one positive in the poll...that the majority don't want to visit our great country!

1) Is the world safer after September 11? Yes - 4.2 % No - 95.8 %
2) Do you support Osama bin Laden? Yes - 49.9 % No - 50.1 %
3) Do you think that the war on Iraq is a war on Islam? Yes - 79.8 % No - 20.2 %
4) Do you think that there is a link between the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq? Yes - 23.4 % No - 76.6%
5) Do you wish to travel to the United States? Yes - 27.6 % No - 72.4 %

Monday, September 11, 2006

A disconnect that's hard to explain

I have often alluded to the hypocrisy one can observe in the words and actions of Democrats on the key issues as compared to Republicans in the post 9/11 era. I'm not suggesting that the right is perfect, just that the left seems to have en masse abandoned key principles and values they once (although still claim) to hold dear.

This hypocrisy is so obvious that it's perpetration is confusing...They don't even try to disguise it and so I theorized, some time ago, that it must literally be a mental disorder. How else can one explain intelligent people yelling 2+2=5? And so I called it Bushdisdainia!

On this 5th anniversary of attacks on our way of life by Islamic fascists I feel the same way I felt on that morning...I was pissed, I was patriotic, tears were easy to come thinking about those who lost their lives. But one thing I have never felt..not even in the that in any way we brought this on ourselves. I believe most conservatives feel the same. Sadly many (maybe even most) liberals feel really is shocking to me that liberals feel that these Islamic extremists could be quelled by anything other than our destruction. Some have compared Hitler to some of the Islamic anti-semitic leaders....but would Hitler give up his desire to rid the planet of inferior Jews from simply having some sort of appeasement talks?

DJ Drummond over at Wizbang has an excellent (albeit long) essay on this disconnect I encourage you to read. A small sample that hit home for me:

But the modern Liberal has abandoned most of what Liberalism used to mean. Where the old Liberal wanted all people to be treated as equals, the modern Progressive (to use the word they stole from Teddy Roosevelt to pretend to respectable intention) demands preferential treatment and advantages for a select minority. Where the old Liberal fought against Racism and Sexism, the modern Progressive is happy to take up those very causes, in order to advance their agenda. Even where the Conservative outrage about CBS's "The Reagans" is matched in the media with Liberal anger about "The Path to 9/11", methods differ sharply, as Democrats have even threatened to attack ABC's very broadcast license if they do not get what they demand. The Progressive Method is Hypocrisy in action, and eschews the Constitution by design.

Never Forget

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Our turn for Fake But True

Apparently various Clinton administration alum have their knickers in a bunch over an ABC two part mini-series called The Path to 9/11. I find it interesting that they say ABC (and parent Disney) acknowledge the show is fiction and contradicts the 9-11 commission report but I cannot find any such acknowledgement.

It's also interesting that specific complaints from people such as Sandy (that's not a document in pants) Berger and Madeleine (I've never been wrong in my life) Albright are based not on their viewing of the series, but of someone else's account of certain scenes.....ah, ok....while they may in fact have a bone to pick they don't really know for sure. Of course you know darn well that anything that makes 9/11 look like anybody other than GW Bush's fault will be contested aggressively. I'm surprised these Clinton-ites aren't just saying 9/11 was a conspiracy and executed by the government under Carl Rove's direction. Oh wait...the planning and placement of all those building demolition charges and miles of wire had to be done before GWB was even elected..OH MY GOD....this proves that those crazy Bush cronies stole the election....they had to ensure they would be in office on 9/11!

The truth is only interesting to the left (of which the media is a major part of) when it supports their position. The stunning apathy on the left and in the main stream media that in fact the Valerie Plame leaker was an opponent of Bush policies named Richard Armitage. The calls from the left, and the MSM, for Bush to step down, impeachment for this and for Iraq, for someone to go to jail, that Rove, Cheney, etc. were evil and played with our security (as if Plame was a real operative), that this was just more proof of the evil right are they calling for Armitage's balls?

I think the past behavior of those who are (and are yet to) yelling about this ABC series will in fact tell us that the events laid out in the drama may in fact be right on the least thinking that puts a smile on my face.

Update: Hugh Hewitt has seen the ABC piece (unlike the complainers) and he says it's very critical of the Bush administration as well....but you don't see Bush or the GOP complaining do you? Clinton, who hasn't seen it, is saying he just wants it to be accurate...ok, any guesses on whether it will illustrate the 3 chances he had to take out Osama and didn't? A concise op/ed on Clinton's blown chances by Investors Business Daily.

Update: The new Dem power brokers, exemplified by the DailyKos, is employing an all out assault to censor or kill the ABC docu-drama.....the left is so mortified that it's base is so fragile that they can't survive any portrayal of their past leaders looking weak..truly amazing!

Update: UN-F'ing believable...the Democrats are the most chicken-sh*t bunch of hypocrites the world has known....they supposedly care about civil liberties...yet a docudrama that might paint any of them in a bad light must be pulled off the air? Can you imagine if Republican leadership was trying to pull this same stunt...the Dems would be making comparisons to book burnings, censorship and not trusting the public to make up their own minds whether ENTERTAINMENT was anything close to the truth. The Dems are cowards in facing scrutiny let alone in fighting the war on terror.

Update: You could have guessed this was going to happen....ABC is going to make changes to the content? If Clinton really did make a call to them I would love to hear it..... "Mr. Former President, but did Sandy really stop the CIA from doing it?" Clinton: "it depends on what your definition of IT is".

And as the WSJ's Tarranto put it "one wishes the Clinton people had been as aggressive in defending the nation from bin Laden as they now are in defending their own reputations." See his blog today, the story "Democrats Embrace Pre-Emption" midway down.

Sure, it's totally believable that Clinton wasn't distracted by the Lewinsky affair...that was just business as usual for Slick Willy!

Update: Excellent essay by Dean Barnett at TownHall on why the "Clintonistas" are all up in arms over this mini-series..and his final thoughts here:

But 9/11 changed everyone else's world view. It became apparent to most of America that we had to kill the would-be criminals before they actually became criminals. To most Americans, this was disquieting but a common sense necessity.

But the left never escaped its previousmind sett. Liberals remain exactly where they were 10 years ago; desirous of a policy that waits for a terrorist act and then lets law enforcement mop up the aftermath.

The fact that people are talking about the Democrats' attitude towards terrorism is horrifically damaging to the Democratic Party. There is, however, a way out for the Democrats. Truly, it would be best for the country and their party if they could arrive at a clearly articulated policy about what they would like to do, rather than simply loudly express primal emotions about how much they detest their domestic political opposition.

Alas, that's all they have. And this controversy brings their intellectually bankrupt status into the open.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

The Muslim slippery slope!

Yesterday on the Wall Street Journal opinion blog was an item where the Muslim beauty, and the 2005 Miss London, Hammasa Kohistani postulates that "even" a moderate Muslim can slip right into becoming terrorists because of the attitude others have towards them in today's Islamic Jihad rich environment. WHAT??????

You mean that Muslims are so fragile, so inherently prone to unspeakable evil that some dirty looks, or a few anti-Muslim signs, or being singled out in an airport screening line will push, say an accountant, into a bomb belt wearing suicide west hater? You know instead of playing in that cricket match, I'll strap on some C-4 and get on a bus!

Oh, we better listen to Kohistani and not profile Muslims. Never mind that the most unifying link to nearly all terrorists acts around the world in the last 10 years is that those involved are Muslim extremists.....if we just act nice, don't stare...don't do that....they will just sit on the fence with normal loving person on one side and terrorist on the's so easy for them to become don't push them!

Exact text from James Tarranto of the WSJ opinion blog:

Moderate Terrorists
"The first Muslim to be crowned Miss England has warned that stereotyping members of her community is leading some towards extremism," reports London's Daily Mail:

Hammasa Kohistani made history last year when she was chosen to represent
England in the Miss World pageant. . . .

She said: "The attitude towards Muslims has got worse over the year.
Also the Muslims' attitude to British people has got worse.

"Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves.
They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It
will take a long time for communities to start mixing in
more. . . ."

So let's see if we follow this argument. According to Kohistani, Muslims are so thin-skinned and so violent that they respond to prejudice with terrorism.

Um, isn't that an invidious stereotype?

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

How many degrees between you and a modern day Hitler?

Yesterday my brother-in-law was telling me about how over the weekend he heard a women use the phrase "six steps of separation". Turns out she had a few glasses of wine at that point and so we were joking maybe she was mixing AA's twelve steps with the phrase she was trying to use "six degrees of separation".

I didn't really know the story behind this phrase other than it had to do with linking someone within those six degrees to actor Kevin I looked into it. Well Six Degrees of Separation was a stage play in 1990, then a film in 1993 (Bacon was in neither) but both are based on the premise that everyone in the world is connected to everyone else in the world by a chain of no more than 6 acquaintances. Supposedly the phrase got linked to Kevin Bacon by a trivia game created by 3 college students who also got booked on the John Stewart Show. The game was to link any actor to Kevin Bacon within six acquaintances in films, TV shows or plays that actor had been in. The producer who booked the three students supposedly called the trivia game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

I think, in fact, it is interesting how many people you can connect to when you get to 3 or 4 degrees of separation. The number of people in your pool at that point is in the thousands or tens of thousands. However, with no separation (you have had direct contact) or just one degree...well that limits you in a big way.

For example how many of you have no separation between you and Hugo Chavez? Or only one degree of separation between you and our modern day Hitler Iran's Ahmedinejad? While this story isn't really about Cindy Sheehan, it's about these other two, that's how connected Cindy is to each of these.

Cindy visiting and kissing Chavez is well known...and the recent closeness of Chavez to Ahmedinejad has also been in the MSM....but what I doubt will make it's way into the MSM is that Hezbollah is apparently developing a following (thru marketing) in Chavez's country. A must view is the video blog on this very topic over at HotAir, where you should make regular visits to see the daily video blogs.

It's very scary that these two anti-American leaders are cavorting in any way. Together they could cause economic havoc messing with their oil production and price, let alone working together to build an Islamic extremist terrorist mentality in South America....this kind of thing will not be stopped by playing nice with meaningless UN resolutions..

Update: Part 2 of HotAir VBlog on Hezbollah in Latin America