Making a racist point!

Ah...Occasionally you read a story where someone goes out of there way to expose the blatant flaw in the thinking or actions of others. It's a wonderful thing to see...and hopefully when someone does point out the king has no clothes people actually take note of their own flawed alignment with the naked king!

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!

Homopandering

On Saturday there was an international leadership conference meeting for a particular group with attendance a modest 200. Normally a group of 200 isn't all that impressive except in this case the 200 are all public officials....ok, so that means they work at some level of government (city, county, state or federal) and so could influence things to some degree. Then add that they got chief Dem moonbat Howard Dean to talk to them....and he showed them some support in what he said.

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.

Liberal Hypocrisy

A look at Liberalpocrisy I've been busy so have not posted in a while....but what fun it has been since the elections to watch the bumbling and blatent (but not to them) liberalposcrisy!

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.".

Return of the Kerry Magic!

I had to steal Dean Barnett's post title over on HughHewitt.com on Kerry's amazingly timed gaffe in a speech Kerry was giving to college students.

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.

CNN - Actively working against an Iraq victory

The choice of CNN to air a snuff film of an American soldier in Iraq is beyond reprehensible, it's treasonous and sickening. I suppose American Flag hating Ted Turner is thrilled that CNN, while out of his influence, is actively promoting against an American victory in Iraq by showing terrorist insurgent propaganda.

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.
.

Racist Democrat Hypocrisy?

Today some, not all, of the MSM is covering a story about how Democrat House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has apologized for saying to a mostly black audience that Republican Senate candidate, and currently the Lt. Gov. of Maryland, Michael Steele. Steele, who is black, was described by Steny (even his name sounds like a racist) as having "a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party."

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!

Going Mad

Has everyone gone mad? I just get the insanity, the illogical thinking going on all around us. Some examples, you decide!

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%.

More examples of the "Difference"

Democrat: We need to try and keep Foley in the news and continue to link gays with Republicans! Republican: We need to be aggressive about sanctions on North Korea.

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.

The Difference

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?

The difference between the left and right

The other night I caught Dennis Miller talking about how after 9/11 he swung nearly full tilt to conservatism. This was mostly a war on terrorism move for him, but he also said that he has noted over many years of doing his political standup that liberals in the audience were far less tolerant to humor directed at them compared to conservatives...he said this was "universal".

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.

Calling all Pages!

I have a great idea to help make sure we a) get the electorate focused on the issues that face our nation and how candidates will deal with them and b) get rid of all Washington deviants that work in the House and Senate.

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!

Does AA now treat Pedophilia?

I was surprised to hear each news spot about Mark Foley's resignation from the House included that he has checked himself into a rehabilitation clinic for alcoholism. While to some it may sound harsh labeling someone thinking about sex with a 16 year olds as pedophilia it fits the definition. I think it's pathetic that Foley is trying to deflect his fascination with male children by suggesting the cause is a drinking problem. I wasn't aware anyone had linked pedophilia or homosexuality with alcohol abuse!

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.

Brown Nosing

Bob Woodward's schnoz is looking brown these days. After his last two books were not perceived by the liberal elite as being critical enough on Bush, Bob wants to get back in favor with his leftist brethren. And they seem all to eager to forgive. If your willing to do a Bush hit piece, no matter how thin, you can get booked on every TV program including, probably, MTV's Cribs.

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.

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

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 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. "

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'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.

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 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.

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 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."

Liar Liar

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 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!