• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

May 31, 2006

Lance Cleared of Doping

Sorry, Pierre:

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — Independent Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the American cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider "appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations."

Lance Armstrong is an American sports legend. This latest finding is good news indeed.

And hey, anything that gets under the skin of the French is a bonus in my book.

Go on, stick it to Frenchie!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 05:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Sports

Wanting Haditha to Be True

David's Medienkritik, ever vigilant in exposing anti-American bias in the German media, gives us this gem today. The web page of the state-sponsored news program ARD tagesschau claims in a headline that U.S. Marines participated in a massacre in Haditha and murdered Iraqi civilians.

As Ray D. points out:

Certainly, if an investigation and trial determine that the soldiers in question are, in fact, guilty of murder and participation in a massacre, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But the bottom line is that the German media has no right to conclusively label the killings murders (and thus imply that the soldiers are murderers) until all the facts are known and until said soldiers are found guilty and convicted.

This is a point I made in my post from earlier this month regarding John Murtha's ranting and raving over the incident. (Note to commenter "boredbrit": Lame insults don't get you far in the marketplace of ideas. Come up with something intelligent to back your claims next time.)

Ray D. continues:

Ironically, the same ARD journalists who can't seem to stop screaming about the denial of judicial due process to Guantanamo inmates are not even willing to afford the same privilege to American soldiers, despite the fact that American soldiers stood guard for decades and guaranteed their freedom of speech during the Cold War. In the ARD world, Guantanamo terrorists are innocent until proven guilty, American soldiers guilty until proven innocent.

Islamic terrorists good, American soldiers bad. This seems to be the mindset of the European chattering classes, and is illustrated beautifully by this piece in ARD.

"But civilians have died!" you say. "Those who did it must pay!" Is this truly what the German media is concerned about? I don't think so, and neither does Ray D.:

This is about shaming the United States of America and those who supported the war, regardless of the facts, right or wrong. This is about seizing the moral high ground, pure and simple. The killing of two dozen Iraqi civilians suddenly matters to the German media elite. Why? Because it has the potential to discredit the United States, Bush and supporters of the war. Conversely, the same media cynics stood by and largely ignored the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians during the Hussein regime. Today they stand by and ignore the fact that their own government continues to promote trade with a government guilty of an ongoing campaign of mass murder in Sudan.

Bottom line: There is an investigation in place. Once its findings are known, and if the soldiers are court martialed and found guilty, then we can call them murderers. However, we must wait for that day to come before we can start putting on our "Down With Marines" party hats. Even then, however, there is no real cause for celebration. Here's commentary from Blue Crab Boulevard's Gaius' son, who is currently stationed in Iraq (hat tip Brainster):

My squad leader is sitting right beside me, and we just compared notes on
how many IEDs we've been through. We counted six each. One of them hit my truck, one of them hit his. I can tell you from firsthand experience that after an IED goes off, every soldier's first instinct is to start shooting at everything in sight that's moving. Someone has just tried to kill you, and you can't kill him back. That said, we've never gone on a shooting rampage after an IED. On the other hand, all the roadside bombs we've encountered have only resulted in minor injuries. To play devil's advocate, I can't imagine how it feels to lose a friend and comrade to an unseen enemy. If the Marines in question are found guilty of committing a crime, I will partially understand their emotions even if I abhor their decision.


The above is the military man in me talking. As a human being, I have a
natural and visceral reaction to this story that turns my stomach. If it is indeed true, these men should suffer the most severe punishment imaginable.


However, the most absolutely important thing to remember in this situation
is that these men HAVE NOT been proven guilty. All that exists right now is
rumor and innuendo. There is no proof, no convictions. Right now, there isn't even a trial.

There are always two sides to every story. Too bad the leftwing German press hasn't figured that out yet.

Technorati: , ,

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1) | Iraq

Top 10 Least Favorite Bedtime Stories

Wyatt Earp over at Support Your Local Gunfighter has to start going to bed at an earlier hour. This is the twisted sort of thing one's mind comes up with in the middle of the night:

10. The Three Little Earwigs.
9. Harry Potter and the Incurable Itch.
8. One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Drunk Fish.
7. Goodnight Moon, Hello Hangover!
6. Marvin K. Mooney, Will You Please Drop Dead?
5. Goldilocks and the Three Disgruntled Teamsters.
4. How the Grinch Stole Susie Lou Hoo’s Virginity.
3. Horton Hears a Blood-Curdling Scream.
2. The Little Engine That Could . . . With Help From Viagra.

And the number one least favorite children’s story is . . .

1. Hop On (The King of) Pop.

LOL! Head on over and tell him what you think!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Humor

Guilty for a Second Time

For the second time, John Allen Muhammed was found guilty of the terror he inflicted upon the citizens in the Washington D.C. area back in 2002. (Was it really that long ago?) From the Washintgon Post:

A jury deliberated less than five hours yesterday before finding John Allen Muhammad guilty in each of the six sniper slayings in Montgomery County, marking the second time he has been held responsible in the 2002 rampage that terrorized the Washington area.

The verdict, returned in the county where the snipers did most of their killing,ended a four-week trial that brimmed with new claims about the mechanics of the slayings and the motives behind them. The source of those claims was Muhammad's younger accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, who agreed to plead guilty and testify for the first time against the man he once regarded as a father.

Muhammed is already in death row in Virginia as a result of his 2003 conviction there.

Malvo, whose testimony was key during this trial, "testified that he expected no leniency in exchange for his [guilty] plea and was cooperating with prosecutors because he wanted to help the victims' families and to confront Muhammad."

Taking responsibility for his crimes. That is a novel concept indeed in these times, when the criminal is so often portrayed as a victim. Who knows? If it hadn't been for Muhammed's "tutelage," Malvo may have turned out to be an exceptional young man.

Of course, we will never know now.

"I don't see how he [Muhammed] can stand in front of the judge and the lawyers and the family members and the public and say he didn't do it," said Vijay Walekar, whose brother was killed while pumping gas. "I just don't see how he does it."

He's a killer who hoped to get away with it. He is evil. That's how.

Michelle Malkin reminded us last week of what was really behind the killings. You won't see these drawings anywhere else.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Homeland Security

May 30, 2006

Al Gore's Mea Culpa

In order to make his message about upcoming global disaster more appealing, Al Gore said his lack of communication skills added to the problem:

"I will own up to shortcomings in my ability to communicate," said Mr Gore, who ran against President Bush in 2000.

"But I'm not through with this yet and I am devoting myself to it".

The left loves apologies. Bill Clinton was always apologizing to the world for pretty much anything and everything that happened on his watch (or not), even if it wasn't his fault. I guess Gore did learn something from him after all.

During the speech, Gore claimed to be carbon neutral. The folks from from the Competetive Exchange Institute (CEI) don't seem to think he is. That whole "change the way you live thing" must just be for you and me. After all, traveling around the world by clipper ship and wagon train isn't exactly comfortable and convenient enough for someone of Gore's stature.

Couldn't he just videoconference his appearances? Well, probably not...he wouldn't get paid as much.

You won't be seeing Al Gore in one of these any time soon

More at Moonbattery

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

It's My Birthday Today...

Guess how old I am?


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:05 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Personal

May 26, 2006

Galloway: Blair's Murder Would Be "Justified"

This man simply becomes more and more repugnant every day:

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

He's not calling for it, but it would be logical and explicable? For him to even utter such words publicly is completely shocking and unimaginable. Treasonous, in fact. Back in the days of King Henry VIII, his head would have been lopped off in short order.

Even Britain's Stop the War Coalition criticized Galloway's comments.

But what else can one expect of someone who admires Castro?

Not even President Bush's harshest critics in our government have (at least publicly) said that his death at the hands of Islamic extremists would be justified. And, to my knowledge, no MSM interviewer has asked such a question. (Let me know if I'm wrong.)

Why this man is still in office is a mystery to me...but then, British politics are a mystery to me anyway. What a contemptible person.

Show Comments

May 25, 2006

Short People Got No Reason to Go to Prison

Want to commit a crime? Specifically, a sex crime against a child? Better hope you're short, and you get this judge at your trial:

SIDNEY, Neb. - A judge said a 5-foot-1 man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was too small to survive in prison, and gave him 10 years of probation instead.

His crimes deserved a long sentence, District Judge Kristine Cecava said, but she worried that Richard W. Thompson, 50, would be especially imperiled by prison dangers.

"You are a sex offender, and you did it to a child," she said.

But, she said, "That doesn't make you a hunter. You do not fit in that category."

Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

He faces 30 days of jail each year of his probation unless he follows its conditions closely.

"I want control of you until I know you have integrated change into your life," the judge told Thompson. "I truly hope that my bet on you being OK out in society is not misplaced."

So put him in solitary confinement if you're worried about his safety! Here are a couple of questions: was Thompson worried about the safety (both mental and physical) of the child he assaulted? Is the judge worried about the safety of children Thompson may come into contact with?

Here's what a friend of mine said when she replied to my sending her the link to this story:

The judge is on crack!!!!! Height does not matter – a pedophile is a pedophile and labeled as such for a reason. I hope her decision is appealed by the prosecutor. If anything, his size makes him more dangerous in the outside world as children will perceive him as a child himself and he will gain their trust easily!

We have penalties for specific crimes for a reason. His being short is no reason to keep him out of jail. It's yet another example of putting the interests of the convicted criminal over those of his victim (not to mention potential future victims).

If Judge Cecava wants true control over him, why doesn't she have him live in her home under her direct supervision? Only then could she be sure that he'd be OK being out in society.

This is a truly nauseating example of a travesty of justice.

Randy Newman may have had
it right in this case.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

May 24, 2006

PC Goes to the Next Level in Michigan Schools

Things are going too far:

In perhaps a well-intentioned, but pernicious example of political correctness, the Michigan Department of Education is attempting to ban the "America" and "American" from our public schools. Even though the word "America" appears in the department's own civics and government benchmarks, the department's style protocol for the Michigan Education Assessment Program requires that "America" and "Americans" be expunged from our testing and grade level expectations. Last week, the department ordered that our hard-working teachers not utter the words.


The Department of Education asserts that "Americans" includes Mexicans, Canadians and others in the Western Hemisphere, so referring to U.S. residents as Americans is inappropriate. In the department's view, "America" happens to include South, Central and North America. Accordingly, when referring to the colonial period, the state bureaucracy requires teachers to refer to "the colonies of North America" or "North Americans." After the American Revolution, the nation is called the United States (not of America).

Last I heard, Canadians would rather wither away and die before being referred to as Americans. (Heck, those who sneak over from Mexico don't even want to be Americans, even while working here and accepting free education and medical care). How about all of the other citizens from around the world who call people from the United States "Americans"? How does the Michigan school system plan to educate them regarding the appropriate term?

This is absolute garbage. Banning the terms America and Americans from usage in Michigan schools isn't educational, nor does it make a heck of a lot of sense. When people worldwide hear the word America, they don't think of Mexico, Canada, or any of the Central American or South American countries. They think of the United States of AMERICA -- where millions of people have come throughout our nearly 300-year history in search of a better life. And even if citizens from other countries don't like us, they still think of us as Americans...perhaps with the qualifier "ugly" in front of it.

But what else can one expect from a public school system that has been hijacked by PC moonbats who seem to be more concerned with nitpicky phrasing than actually improving educational standards?

And what about national pride? Oh right, I forgot. National pride is not allowed in the PC universe.

I wonder how long it will take for other school systems around the country to adopt this policy?

Crossposted to Lifelike Pundits.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

Hillary Draws Hundreds...er, Tens

Nashville, Tennessee wasn't exactly the place to kickoff a new website touting Hillary Clinton.

GOP and the City has the details.

I wonder if the person who made this decision is still employed?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

Commencement Speeches: No Longer Inspirational

It used to be that college commencement speakers would give speeches designed to inspire and congratulate the students who just completed an important part of their lives.

Now, it seems, commencement speakers have decided to use the podium as a pulpit for their own political beliefs, taking advantage of a captive audience to further a particular agenda.

There have been plenty of examples in the news of late, but this is probably one that won't be in your peripheral because the university is not a high profile one. Catherine Crier, former lawyer and judge who hosts Catherine Crier Live on Court TV, gave the commencement address at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, Connecticut.

My alma mater.

I didn't attend my own commencement because I graduated mid-year, and decided not to bother walking down the aisle in the spring. If Crier is the kind of speaker that WCSU is in the habit of engaging, I can see I didn't miss much.

Crier thought her speech was so important that she posted it on HuffPo. You can read it in its entirety if you wish to know how Crier took what is supposed to be a happy, uplifting occasion to criticize the Bush administration and our presence in Iraq. (Hey, if the usual ploys don't work, use that captive audience to advantage!)

It seems that some in the audience didn't take kindly to Crier's hijacking the graduation.

Western Connecticut State University graduate Krista M. Lindstedt wants an apology from commencement speaker Catherine Crier, who turned Sunday's graduation ceremony into "more of a political rally than a commencement speech that should be positive, motivational and happy."

"Overall she offended a lot of people," said Lindstedt, 33, of Crier's speech, which lasted at least 20 minutes. "It was completely, completely inappropriate. It was a slap in the face to veterans" — and soldiers like herself.

Linstedt didn't just sit mum. She stood up and told Crier what she thought.

"I said this is wrong. It is not about you, about politics. It is about graduation. This is an insult to graduates and guests who have family members over there (in Iraq). They didn't come to sit at a political rally."

Lindstedt and others stood and turned their backs to Crier to show their opposition to her message. Many people came up to Lindstedt later and shook her hand or patted her on the back for standing up for her beliefs.

"I did not plan on that happening," she said. "It was not about our moment that we were living. It was not about our achievements, expectations and moving forward, but a slam on the (Bush) administration."

According to the News Times article quoted above, Crier was not surprised by the reaction of the crowd.

"I know that these issues are very sensitive issues on all sides of the fence, all sides of the debate," said Crier. "I wasn't completely surprised (at the protest). I didn't walk away upset because it wasn't perfect.

"In an ideal world," she said, "it be great if you could sort of propose different points of view, engaging in ideas, engaging in healthy debate."

Newsflash: a commencement speech is not healthy debate. It's one person in front of a crowd of people, speaking without having to answer questions regarding what is said. It's also a day to honor graduates and inspire them, not a day to rail against an administration whose policies one does not agree with.

This bit, from Crier's post on HuffPo, is particularly telling of her attitude toward different points of view:

I gave a commencement speech this morning at Western Connecticut State University. Skipping the usual themes, I addressed political concerns. My remarks inspired a number of hecklers, parents and students alike, who tried to boo me from the podium. My thanks to the many people who applauded, and those brave young graduates who stepped out of line when receiving their diplomas to shake my hand.

Stepping out of line to shake her hand was brave? Puh-leeze. How about Linstedt, who stood up in the middle of a large crowd to tell Crier she thought the speech was inappropriate in such a setting? One would think that Crier, a progressive thinker, would applaud Linstedt's move, even if she didn't agree with the sentiment behind it.

Silly me.

Catherine Crier motivates from the left

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

Lawmakers In a Tizzy over FBI Raid

Lawmakers on the Hill are upset over the FBI raid on Rep. William J. Jefferson's (D-LA) Capitol Hill office, which yielded cash and documents regarding a bribery investigation. Many of them see it as a violation of constitutional language and case law that protects lawmakers from being intimidated by the executive branch.

Both Democrats and Republicans are up in arms.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) complained directly to President Bush yesterday about the FBI raid, while House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted a constitutional showdown before the Supreme Court.

"My opinion is that they took the wrong path," Hastert told reporters after his meeting with Bush in the White House. "They need to back up, and we need to go from there."

Captain Ed (of Captain's Quarters) has this to say:

This can't be the same Congress that issues subpoenas for all sorts of probes into the executive branch and the agencies it runs. Does Congress really want to establish a precedent that neither branch has to answer subpoenas if issued by the other, even if approved by a judge -- which this particular subpoena was?

The FBI had a valid subpoena for the information in Jefferson's office. He refused to provide it. The FBI had little choice but to go in and take it, and from the description given in the Washington Post, they took extraordinary care not to confiscate legitimate data relating to his legislative responsibilities.

Exactly. Jefferson refused to cooperate with a valid subpoena. How else was the FBI supposed to carry on with their investigation? Consult the Magic 8 ball?

This uproar, coming on the heels of Rep. Patrick Kennedy not having to take a breathalizer test after crashing his car and behaving as though he was intoxicated, gives the public a view not of a Congress devoted to the laws they themselves create, but of a Congress that believes its members to be above having to answer to those laws.

As Mel Brooks said as King Louis in History of the World Part I, "It's good to be the king."

Making a stink over a legal sweep into the office of a Congressman who is suspected of illegal activities isn't the best way to burnish Congress' ever-tarnishing reputation. Congressional leaders may want to think more about the tack they're taking on this. The people will only stand for so much.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Government

May 22, 2006

Veterans Dissed by Stamford Schools

From Michelle Malkin, we learn that schools in Stamford, CT may no longer be observing the Veteran's Day holiday:

The school board voted 8 to 1 Feb. 28 in favor of opening on Friday, Nov. 10, to cut one day off the end of the year in June. Friday is the holiday this year because Veterans Day falls on a Saturday.

School board President Susan Nabel said students should get a lesson in civics and history instead of a day off.

"We all felt the real meaning of Veterans Day has been lost for students for quite a few years," she said.

Board members also felt it was more productive to have an extra school day in November rather than June, she said.

According to the board, seveal veterans' groups were apprised of, and supported, the change.

Schools in Connecticut aren't required to take the day off. There are other districts that don't observe the Veterans' Day holiday either. And, part of me can see the sense in actually learning about wars our veterans served in and the sacrifices they made on a day when kids would otherwise be either at home goofing off or on an extended weekend getaway with their families.

However, here's another way of looking at it:

If learning about a holiday is a better way to celebrate than taking a day off, veterans say school should be in session on all holidays, including Labor Day, Columbus Day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

"How can you have that one school holiday stricken from the school calendar and not the others?" said Rubino, who will have two sons at Toquam Magnet Elementary School in the fall. "You could imagine the outrage if they tried to remove Martin Luther King Day and say, 'We are going to come to school and talk about who Martin Luther King was.' "

Indeed. Ask Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton what they would think of that one! At my daughter's school, they learn about Veterans' Day in the weeks preceding the holiday. So really, how much is being accomplished by abolishing the observance?

Veterans' Day: A waste of time?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:02 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Education

Jean Rohe: Moonbat in the Making

Pat over at Brainster has a great post about the girl who spearheaded the student protest over John McCain's commencement address at New School.

I agree: she's a moron, and so are the students who joined in her little publicity stunt. The whole thing is remeniscent of a bunch of three-year-olds throwing a tantrum because they didn't get cookies when they demanded them.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

Democrats: Contributing to the Culture of Corruption

If Nancy Pelosi thought that coining the little phrase "culture of corruption" when referring to the Republicans was a good idea, she might want to think again.

A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer.

At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa.

As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching,'" according to the affidavit.

Jefferson, who represents New Orleans, has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing.

Read the whole article here.

Here's the problem: No party is more privy to corruption than the other. Human beings of any political persuasion can be afflicted with greed and be tempted to do favors in return for money or goods they are not entitled to.

Republicans do it. Democrats do it.

What it boils down to is personal integrity. Either you have it or you don't.

The question remains: will Pelosi and other high-ranking Dems consider this part of a trend toward "culture of corruption," or will they try to brush it under the rug as an anomaly?

I leave you to guess the answer.

The latest addition to the Culture of Corruption

hat tip: PCD

More: Moonbattery, Michelle Malkin

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

May 19, 2006

Phone Taps: Paranoia Sweeps Nation

For those of you who think that perhaps the MSM is losing its hold on Americans, consider the findings of this recent poll:

One in four Americans think it is likely that the government has listened to their phone calls, according to a CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation.

That's right: 25% of those polled think that the president and his administration are concerned about which movie you and your friends are planning to see tonight, as well as which restaurants you're calling for takeout and how much weight you've gained recently.

A couple of reminders: Those phonecalls that were listened in on were phonecalls made to or by people with known al-Quaeda connections. So unless your grandmother is an Uzi-toting al-Quaeda sympathizer, you most likely don't have anything to worry about. Unless, of course, you've been using the phone to complain about having Chimpy McBushitler in the White House. We all know how many people have been tossed into the gulag for that! (Er, how many again?)

The recent story about collecting phone records in order to look for calling patterns, which has been neither affirmed nor denied by the government, makes me want to laugh. People are worried about steps being taken to ensure that another terrorist attack doesn't take place, but they don't seem to mind that their phone numbers, addresses, and shopping habits are constantly being traded and sold by catalogs and other retailers who are dying to get you onto their mailing lists. They also don't seem to mind that CNN and other pollsters have access to their phone numbers in order to call them during dinner to ask their opinion on what they like to call "domestic spying."

Here's a poll question I'd like to see: Are you worried that someone is leaking information to the press that is hampering our government's ability to protect us from another terrorist attack?

Don't hold your breath.

The government wants to know: are you having
General Tso's Chicken or pizza tonight?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:42 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

In the Shadow of Hitler

UPDATE (via Michelle Malkin): The report may not be true.

From Canada.com:

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Read the rest here.

Rabbi Hier, quoted in the article, says this will pass unless there's an "international outcry." Frankly, I don't think such an outcry would have much effect on Iran's decision either way. Consider President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reaction to incentives being offered by Europe if Iran suspends uranium enrichment:

"Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?"


"They say they want to offer us incentives," he said. "We tell them: keep the incentives as a gift for yourself. We have no hope of anything good from you."

His defiance was met with shouts of, "We love you Ahmadinejad!" from the crowd.

Iran is intent upon developing nuclear weapons. Iran plans to make non-Muslims wear color-coded badges for identification. Europe continues to put its collective heads in the sand.

Same story, different antagonist, higher stakes. Will the end result be the same?

A blast from the past?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | International

May 18, 2006

Wyatt Earp vs. French Weenies

For those of you who need yet another reason to boycott France and all things French:

My pal Wyatt Earp over at Support Your Local Gunfighter sent an e-mail to the French embassy stating his displeasure with the naming of a Parisian street after cop murderer Mumia abu Jamal.

Here's the canned reply he received, along with a thorough fisking.

Way to go, Wyatt!

Let's tell it like it is

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Blogging

Murtha's Latest Outrage

Could this man be any more outrageous?

Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19.

The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.

See that? Still under investigation.

The Marine Corps originally claimed that a convoy from the Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, hit a roadside bomb that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, Texas, and the ensuing firefight killed 15 Iraqi civilians — casualties the Corps at first claimed were killed in the bomb blast — including seven women and three children.

A March 27 Time magazine report published claims by an Iraqi civil rights group that the Marines barged into houses near the bomb strike, throwing grenades and shooting civilians as they cowered in fear. The report prompted calls for a Pentagon probe.

“It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

How does he know it's much worse than what Time reported? The article says that a spokesman for Murtha could not add to his remarks, and a military spokesman said he didn't know where Murtha could be getting his information.

Is it true? Maybe. That's why an investigation is underway. Murtha was "generous" in saying that combat stress was a contributing factor in the alleged incident. But for him to denounce our Marines in the field before the official investigation is completed not only demoralizes our troops, but gives the enemy more cause to believe that the war in Iraq is losing to a war of ideologies at home.

Please don't bring up the fact that Murtha was in the Marines himself. Former military service doesn't excuse his current behavior. That's like saying a former cop should be given a pass if he commits a crime. We're at war fighting an enemy that will not quit until it is ground into dust. Public bloviating by Murtha and his cronies hurts our cause. Free speech? Sure. Responsible speech? Nope.

Question: Who's investigating Murtha's despicable conduct?

Playing politics with our boys on the battlefield

More: Confederate Yankee, Stop the ACLU, Hugh Hewitt

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

Honor and Islam

Suzanne Fields writes an excellent article on Town Hall today about honor and Muslim culture, and our inability to combat it with our current "sensibilities."

The "honor killings" by Muslim men of adulterous wives and liberated daughters in Europe, who replace the chador with blue jeans, is regarded in the West as evil divorced from any semblance of honor. But such killings nevertheless testify to the brutal rigidity of the Islamic code of honor, which is fundamentally an appeal to the natural modesty of women. Such ideas are not found in the Koran, where the killing of innocents is forbidden, but are rooted in a pre-Islamic culture that demanded the killing of women who "shamed" their men. Only later were these ideas codified in dogmatic Islam.

Read it all.

Show Comments

May 17, 2006

Mexico Threateans Lawsuits

It seems the Mexican government has been watching too much Law & Order:

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.

Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.


Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths. Since Washington toughened security in Texas and California in 1994, migrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have spiked. Migrant groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. The Border Patrol reported 473 deaths in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.

I love how the Mexican government is more worried about people not getting over the border than why they are leaving.

Juan Canche, 36, traveled more than 1,200 miles to the border from the southern town of Izamal and said nothing would stop him from trying to cross.

"Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle," said Canche, referring to the drought-stricken Rio Grande dividing Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas. "My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it."

This is the main root of the problem. The Mexican economy is in shambles, and desperate people are trying to find employment elsewhere. I understand why they are doing it. This doesn't mean I want them crossing over illegally, but I understand the cause. And, rather than doing something about it at home, the Mexican government continues to pass the buck and make their desperate citizens our problem.

This is not to say Mexicans wouldn't want to come to America if the Mexican economy were strong. But it's doubtful they would be streaming over illegally, thousands a day, risking their very lives in a last ditch effort to support themselves and their families.

In addition to shoring up our southern borders, President Bush (and whomever follows him) should not be allowing the Mexican government to make demands of us. Rather, he should be demanding that Mexico do something about her own pitiful economy that causes her people to leave in droves.

It's time to get tough with Mexico: not just those who violate our immigration laws, but the government that expects us to support its citizens.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

Other CAII action today:

The Amboy Times has another take on Mexico's stance on her citizens streaming over our borders.

Double Barrelled Opinions urges you to contact your representatives now.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:07 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (4) | Illegal Immigration

May 15, 2006

Free Speech Threatened in Boulder

Here's hoping Matt Parker and Trey Stone give this one the treatment it deserves on South Park:

Tuesday, the Boulder City Council will take up the matter of allocating public funding for a "hate hotline," which would give residents an opportunity to report incidents in which Boulderites use tactless language.

The ACLU is concerned, of course. But not for the reason you might think.

"Our concern - and there are many - is that there is no confidentiality, no legal confidentiality," explains Judd Golden, chairman of the Boulder American Civil Liberties Union, which has not yet taken an official position on the hate-line. "So it's potentially chilling if people think they are providing this information in confidence and then that information were provided to the government or the government sought access to it. That would chill free speech."

He's worried about the government getting access to the information being called in? What about the fact that the information is being called in at all? Apparently there's no intent for the hate line to forward the complaints to the police or the city council any time soon, but frankly, I have no faith in that. Simply instituting the line is the first step. I can just hear the hate line folks voicing their concerns and sooner than you can make that racial slur, the cops will be beating down your door.

So what the heck is this phone line supposed to do? Will it make the callers feel good knowing they can complain to someone about some dumb blonde joke someone told by the office coffee pot?



Crossposted to Lifelike Pundits

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

May 12, 2006

Condi Induces Lefty Prof Tantrum

Via Michelle Malkin, we learn of a leftwing prof at Boston College who quits in a snit over Condi Rice being this year's commencement speaker. A partial transcript of his letter is below (click on the link to read the whole thing).

An open letter to William P. Leahy, SJ, president of Boston College.

DEAR Father Leahy,

I am writing to resign my post as an adjunct professor of English at Boston College.

I am doing so -- after five years at BC, and with tremendous regret -- as a direct result of your decision to invite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be the commencement speaker at this year's graduation.

Many members of the faculty and student body already have voiced their objection to the invitation, arguing that Rice's actions as secretary of state are inconsistent with the broader humanistic values of the university and the Catholic and Jesuit traditions from which those values derive.

But I am not writing this letter simply because of an objection to the war against Iraq. My concern is more fundamental. Simply put, Rice is a liar.


To be clear: I am not questioning her intellectual gifts or academic accomplishments. Nor her potentially inspiring role as a powerful woman of color.

But these are not the factors by which a commencement speaker should be judged. It is the content of one's character that matters here -- the reverence for truth and knowledge that Boston College purports to champion.

Rice does not personify these values; she repudiates them. Whatever inspiring rhetoric she might present to the graduating class, her actions as a citizen and politician tell a different story.

Honestly, Father Leahy, what lessons do you expect her to impart to impressionable seniors?

That hard work in the corporate sector might gain them a spot on the board of Chevron? That they, too, might someday have an oil tanker named after them? That it is acceptable to lie to the American people for political gain?

Given the widespread objection to inviting Rice, I would like to think you will rescind the offer. But that is clearly not going to happen.

Like the administration in Washington, you appear too proud to admit to your mistake. Instead, you will mouth a bunch of platitudes, all of which boil down to: You don't want to lose face.

In this sense, you leave me no choice.

I cannot, in good conscience, exhort my students to pursue truth and knowledge, then collect a paycheck from an institution that displays such flagrant disregard for both.

I would like to apologize to my students and prospective students. I would also urge them to investigate the words and actions of Rice, and to exercise their own First Amendment rights at her speech.

He should be apologizing to his students for not being able to act like an adult and deal more sensibly with a situation he had no control over. He should also be apologizing for his obvious encouragement for students to make asses of themselves during Rice's upcoming speech, instead of sitting quietly and listening -- even if they don't agree -- like the civilized adults they purport to be. What kind of lesson is that to impart on "impressionable seniors?"

It's comforting to know that his trips to the unemployment line will be tempered with the knowledge that, unlike Boston College, he has saved face. Of course, since he is only an adjunct professor, he probably has a second job working at Borders or Starbucks.

What a weenie.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:13 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Just Plain Stupid

Friday Picks

Busy day today, so I don't know how much time I'll have for posting. In the meantime:

The Man has his Friday Caption Contest going on. See what you can offer!

Marathon Pundit discusses a talk by Irshad Manji that he attended in Chicago.

Pat from Brainster has joined forces with James B. to create a blog called Screw Loose Change: Dedicated to Exposing the Lies, Distortions and Myths in the Movie Loose Change. Head on over to see how they debunk the conspiracy theories contained within a movie only Michael Moore could love.

DeMediacratic Nation tells us of a man who has been trying to become a citizen here the legal way with much difficulty -- yet he still believes in our citizenship process.

Finally, Gary at Ex-Donkey Blog takes on the NSA hysteria that is taking on a life of its own.



Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Blogging

May 11, 2006

Anger Management Tour: Starring the Democratic Left PART II

From the American Thinker: The Politics of Anger on the Left

And President Bush, by his very persona, triggers the very wellsprings of anger and resentment on the part of the secular fundamentalists who dominate the contemporary Left. A large segment of the American intelligentsia and its hangers-on has found an object wholly outside their framework of affection. People who obtained their status and income partially from the ability to speak articulately, and master a body of learning, find it troubling when one who does not flaunt his reading of books and newspapers and does not wield a large vocabulary of eloquently-spoken words rises above them in status. It is an insult to the personal values they have embraced, and on whose rightness their own sense of self-worth depends.


The energy generated by the resulting anger intoxicates those who have no solace in the ability to command others to conform to their vision, lacking access to the instruments of state power. But like the thrill brought on by amphetamines or other nervous system stimulants, the short term surge comes at the cost of longer term damage to health.

Americans tend to favor optimism and a sunny disposition in their political leadership. Ours is a nation built on the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right granted us by our Creator. More than two hundred years after this right was articulated in the Declaration of Independence, Ronald Reagan won overwhelming electoral support running on the slogan “Morning in America.” Aside from its limited electoral appeal, anger is operationally a tricky, even dangerous force to harness. “Blind anger” is a common expression precisely because anger tends to render its carriers insensible to the complexities and subtleties of their environment. Particularly when the angry gather together, their anger feeds on itself and multiplies its force. It is precisely for this reason that mobs are recognized as dangerous. Even if the shared anger is nonviolent, it still is capable of blinding the angry to the probable reactions of others. Convinced of their utter righteousness, seriously angry political movements readily overplay the cards they are dealt. Haters of Bill Clinton learned the hard way that the middle/majority of Americans could not be mobilized to share their passion, even when they held an ace, in the form of their enemy’s false testimony under oath.

Comments on my previous post on this subject prove the very point I was trying to make.

Hat tip: Dissecting the Left

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

Great Cartoon!

By Sean Delonas at the NY Post:


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Humor

May 10, 2006


See the Che picture in the right sidebar? (scroll down) I stole it from The Blather Review, who stole it from someone else...

Good stuff.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Blogging

Richard Lamm: Plan to Destroy America

You may have seen this before. I had heard of it, but tonight on his radio show, Mark Levin read it, and I thought I'd share it with those of you who have not seen/heard it.

Richard Lamm is the former governor of Colorado. He is a Democrat. He made this speech at an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington D.C. Here it is in its entirety:

"If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'

Here is how they do it. Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'

I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.

My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

E. Pluribus Unum — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate.

Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.

Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book." (note: should be Victor Davis Hanson -- ed.)


Makes you think, doesn't it?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Commentary

Profit...It's A Good Thing

One of my favorite people, Walter Williams, has something to say about a dirty little word: profit.

One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one's fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him. Many of the wonderful achievements of the 20th century were the result of the pursuit of profits. Unfortunately, demagoguery has led to profits becoming a dirty word. Nonprofit is seen as more righteous, particularly when people pompously stand before us and declare, "We're a nonprofit organization."

Read the whole thing.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Economy

Censure Jimmy Carter

What a good idea! Jimmy Carter was not only our worst president ever, but is our worst ex-president ever.

Check out this site devoted to his censure.

America's biggest embarrassment!

Hat tip: Stuck on Stupid via Kitty Litter

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:14 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

Bias In Journalism? Say It Ain't So!

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

From Editor and Publisher:

NEW YORK More than half of newspaper journalists in a recent survey believe an unethical or unprofessional incident occurred in their newsroom within the past five years, while seven out of 10 said they had been accused of bias in the past 12 months, according to a study released today by the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

But at least 70% of those polled more often pointed to "factors beyond their control" as the cause of such poor ethical perceptions, rather than their own newspapers' actions.


Of those who had been accused of bias in the past 12 months, most "often blame poor editing as contributing to inaccuracy in their articles." Sources, anonymous or not, also were viewed as "problematic and potentially leading to factual errors," the report stated.


"Newspaper journalists say problems in television news, on Web sites and blogs, and even in tabloids and shopper publications all have a deleterious effect on the credibility of newspaper journalists," the report stated. "In addition, almost one in five say that criticism of media by politicians erodes readers' trust."

In other words, it's always someone else's fault.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: bias has always been, and always will be, a factor in news reporting on both sides of the aisle. Real problems occur when one side dominates or when journalists deny that bias exists. It's even worse that when they're confronted with bias accusations, they try to tie the blame on factors other than their own beliefs and values systems.

You know how politicians are required to make their tax returns public? I think that journalists should be required to make their political party affiliations public. That way, readers/viewers/listeners can read between the lines and get a closer approximation of the truth.

More from: Blue Crab Boulevard, Right Wing News

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

May 09, 2006

Anger Management Tour: Starring the Democratic Left

Richard Cohen in today's Washington Post writes of the flurry of angry e-mails he received regarding his column on Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House correspondents' dinner. (Cohen found it unfunny.)

Kapow! Within a day, I got more than 2,000 e-mails. A day later, I got 1,000 more. By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499 -- a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators. The Colbert messages began with Patrick Manley ("You wouldn't know funny if it slapped you in the face") and ended with Ron ("Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER") who was so proud of his thought that he copied countless others. Ron, you're a genius.

Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails. I did this because I would sometimes recognize a name I thought I knew, which was almost always a mistake. When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face.

Cohen says he's seen this kind of anger before:

But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls.

He's right. The teeming hatred from the far left is damaging the Democrats' cause. These folks see the world in black and white. Cohen, certainly not a fan of President Bush and his administration, dared to call a blatantly Bush-bashing comedy performance unfunny, and suddenly he's in the president's back pocket. Anything that could remotely be seen as giving the president an iota of support, no matter how small, is a reason to arrive at the gates of the castle with torches and pitchforks in hand.

To the far left, there is no such thing as having small disagreements while still sharing the larger picture. The same thing could be said for the far right, as well as any group of extremists. But as the Republicans currently control both the executive and legislative branches of our government, right wing crazies don't pose as much danger to us as the left wing crazies do to the Democrats. If they don't get it together soon, they can kiss any chance of getting back in the driver's seat goodbye.

(On another note, I've noticed that e-mail, especially the kind sent from addresses such as "RoadRageCharlie@Email.com", is undermining some of the veneer of civility in our society. It's easy to hide behind the anonymity of the keyboard, sending out missives of bile and hatred to someone we've never met and probably never will meet. It's the same with blogs, both those who write them and those who post on them. I've had to delete comments from people who, disagreeing with what I've said, decide to fill up the comment box with expletives that would make sailors of old blush. What's the answer? I don't know. But debate and polite disagreement are a heck of a lot nicer than, "You stupid ****, you don't know ****!")

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:45 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

May 08, 2006

Cindy Sheehan: Our Number One Deserter

Since no one in the U.S. wants to listen to her anymore, Cindy Sheehan has taken her sideshow on the road to Canada, where she is urging our northern neighbors to take in deserters from the U.S. armed forces.

OTTAWA -- Canadian soldiers have no business being in Afghanistan and their presence there merely enables the United States to carry on its "illegal and immoral" war in Iraq, prominent U.S. anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said yesterday.

"I believe my country shouldn't be in Afghanistan anyway," Ms. Sheehan said at a news conference on Parliament Hill. "It's never about spreading freedom or democracy or making the world safe, it's about lining the war profiteers' pockets."

While lambasting President George W. Bush and the U.S. government for the Iraq war, Ms. Sheehan also fired broadsides at the UN-backed international mission in Afghanistan.

"My country supported Osama bin Laden in the fight against Russia," she said. "And now they go in and tear down that country. It's back in the hands of the drug lords, it's producing more opium than ever, and it's not safe. There's not any rebuilding going on, because it's being occupied by occupying forces."

Canada's deployment of 2,300 soldiers to Afghanistan simply "frees up more soldiers to be in Iraq," Ms. Sheehan said.

Ms. Sheehan and Canadian activists from the Council of Canadians and the War Resisters Support Campaign also called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to "open the border" to U.S. military deserters.

"I believe our war resisters are legitimate refugees," Ms. Sheehan said.

Ms. Sheehan, whose son, Specialist Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq in April, 2004, gained prominence last year when she camped for days outside Mr. Bush's Crawford, Tex., ranch, demanding answers for the war.

Yesterday, she added her fame to the so-far unsuccessful efforts of Canadian peace activists to persuade the federal government to grant refugee claims by U.S. military deserters who don't want to serve in Iraq.

Last month, the Federal Court of Canada ruled against two U.S. Army deserters who had appealed for refugee status in Canada on the grounds that they might be jailed if they return to the United States.

The court ruled that prosecution in U.S. courts does not amount to persecution. Immigration and Refugee Board decisions had earlier rejected requests for political asylum from Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey.

Speaking alongside Ms. Sheehan at yesterday's media briefing, War Resisters organizer Michelle Robidoux said about 20 more soldiers have since fled to Canada. "We estimate there may be several hundred more who are living clandestinely in Canada," she said. "This is an echo of what happened during the Vietnam War."

The activists conceded that current war resisters are different from those in the Vietnam era because they volunteered to serve, rather than being drafted.

However, Ms. Sheehan said, the soldiers are within their rights to desert because many are "lied to" by U.S. military recruiters who tell them they won't have to fight in Iraq. "My son was an honourable, honest person lied to by his recruiter," she said.

Those who sign up for today's Army or any other branch of the military sign a contract to serve for a specific amount of time. If a war should crop up in that time, soldiers are contractually bound to go to the war zone if assigned. Period.

If you join up thinking it's an easy way to get money for college or skills that can transfer directly to the job market once you're out, then you shouldn't sign up at all. If war doesn't crop up, you get lucky. If it does, then the military has every right to expect you to go where they send you. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Cindy Sheehan is the world's biggest hypocrite, as her son re-enlisted, knowing he could be sent to Iraq. We'll never know what he'd think of his mother's demands for deserters to be allowed into Canada...but based on his actions prior to his death, I don't think he'd be thrilled.

Maybe Cindy will fall in love with Canada and stay there herself. After all, isn't she a deserter in spirit?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1) | Leftwing Lunacy

May 05, 2006

Like Father, Like Son

Not only has Teddy Kennedy's son, Patrick, gone into "public service" like Dad, he has also begun getting preferential treatment from the police regarding traffic incidents. Apparently he crashed his car in Washington D.C., ostensibly on his way to a vote, and was allegedly staggering around afterward.

All of this would have been kept hush-hush had not the union representing Capitol Police written a letter saying superiors prevented the on-the-beat cops from administering sobriety tests.

You know, when our country was formed, it was on the basis that "all men are created equal." Royalty and its trappings and privileges were not to have a part in our brave new world. It seems as though some folks have forgotten that bit, and think that their position entitles them to a pass that the rest of the rabble would not receive.

It's bad enough that celebrities get wrist slaps and winks when they misbehave. We've come to expect that, given the warped sense of reality they live in and the warped way in which many of us worship them. But when elected officials, who are supposed to be serving us and representing our interests (and are the ones making the laws we are all supposed to follow), get special treatment from law enforcement when they should be following the rules, it really cheeses the people off.

Patrick Kennedy says he will now cooperate fully with any investigation. But what's left to investigate? There is no proof. And of course, his father has no comment.

And some people talk about the Bush dynasty?

More: Michelle Malkin, Lifelike Pundits, GOP and the City

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:51 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Just Plain Stupid

May 04, 2006

Finally! Absolute Proof of Global Warming!

Friends of Gore (F.O.G.), an environmental study committee specializing in global warming, has come up with ironclad proof of the phenomenon that is the more threatening to the human race today than terrorism.

Click below to see the most important document you will ever lay your eyes on.

Read More "Finally! Absolute Proof of Global Warming!"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:53 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Humor

May 02, 2006

Nazi No-No vs. Communist Chic

Being associated with any symbol that reminds one of Naziism in our society is taboo -- and for good reason. (Why do you think leftists love to call President Bush Hitler and his supporters Nazis? Nothing like comparing them to one of history's most evil villains and his henchmen.) But Jeff Jacoby has a few observations:

Nazi regalia may be strictly taboo, but communist emblems have never been trendier. Enter "hammer and sickle" into a shopping search engine, and up pop dozens of products adorned with the Marxist brand -- T-shirts and ski caps, bracelet charms and keychains, posters of Lenin and "Soviet Kremlin Stainless Steel Flasks."

The glamorization of communist imagery is widespread. On West 4th Street in Manhattan, the popular KGB Bar is known for its literary readings and Soviet propaganda posters. In Los Angeles, the La La Ling boutique sells baby clothing emblazoned with the face of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro's bloody henchman. At the House of Mao, a popular eatery in Singapore, waiters in Chinese army uniforms serve Long March Chicken, and a giant picture of Mao Zedong dominates one wall.

"A French government agency, the National Lottery, was crazy enough to use Stalin and Mao in one of its advertising campaigns," observed Stephane Courtois in his introduction to The Black Book of Communism, a scholarly survey of communist crimes. "Would anyone even dare to come up with the idea of featuring Hitler or Goebbels in its commercials?"

What explains such "communist chic?" How can people who would never dream of drinking in a pub called Gestapo cheerfully hang out at the KGB Bar? If the swastika is an undisputed symbol of unspeakable evil, can the hammer-and-sickle and other emblems of communism be anything less?

Read the rest here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Double Standards

Yesterday's Protest: The Real Story in Pictures

If you look to the MSM for your information on a daily basis, you are severely uninformed. Take yesterday's "Day Without Immigrants" rallies, for example. One would think that it was a bunch of folks who, in their zeal to become Americans, simply skipped a vital step in the immigration process. You'd think they are all peace-loving, wanna-be productive members of society. "We just want a better life," they say.

For the real story behind much of this protesting for rights that are not their due (their status in our country being illegal), click here. Michelle Malkin has posted plenty of photos of the driving force behind these protests and rallies. Che Guevara, anyone?

The worst part about all of this is the fact that while the protesters have not made their agenda a secret, the MSM is doing their best to keep this agenda a secret from the American public. How? By refraining from the use of "illegal" during their coverage and refraining from the publication of the photos Malkin and others have posted.

Do they really believe all of the politically correct nonsense they are constantly throwing at the rest of us? Or do they secretly agree with/sympathize with the claims being made by yesterday's protesters? Do they think the entire Southwest should be turned back over to Mexico? Do they really believe in open borders? These are questions worth asking, but answers are not guaranteed.

From a personal perspective, yesterday's "shutdown" of NYC didn't happen, at least not in my neck of the woods. I work in Midtown, and didn't notice any appreciable lack of services, food or otherwise. Perhaps it was different in other parts of the city, but I saw plenty of Hispanic-looking folks going about their daily business as I went about mine.

As for the politicians who ignore the wishes of American citizens as they salivate over the prospect of garnering votes from those who probably wouldn't bother voting anyway if granted amnesty (because that's all this "guest worker" claptrap is), I hold them in the utmost contempt. We're watching. And we're biding our time.

More: Defend Our Borders thinks the day was a bust.

Van Helsing at Moonbattery wonders if we can have a "Day Without Immigrants," can we try to have a "Decade Without Illegal Immigrants"?

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:18 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (2) | Illegal Immigration

May 01, 2006

So, You Want To Work In Mexico...

I often get tips from someone called GD, and they are usually very good ones. Most often they are links to articles on the Internet, but this time he sent me what is purported to be a forwarded e-mail by an American working in Mexico. I cannot verify the veracity of what is below, but if it's true, then the hypocrisy of Vicente Fox and Co. is absolutely nauseating:

From the other side of the fence.....

Forwarded to me from friends of Tom O'Malley who was a Director with SW BELL in Mexico City.

I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working Illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

During that six months our Mexican and US attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called an FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same except her's did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificate for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The St.Louis Chief of Police indicating that I had had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."

7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican Citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on Earth" letter. It was fun to write.

All of the above was in English that had to be translated into Spanish and then be certified as legal translations with our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

Once they were completed, Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican Government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location, and we remember at least four locations, we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences.

We could not protest any of the Government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done, we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant that we had rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.

We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican driver's license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the Licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with its photography and finger printing equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it, you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company's Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they had prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.

The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.

Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and if any of our Senators or Congressman went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their "White House" or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US Embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests, the Mexican Military surrounds the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks that we are being hard on illegal immigrants.

Tom O'Malley

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:03 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (2) | Illegal Immigration

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial